Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Pr rite Minister what are the circumstances in which certain of the frontiers of Czechoslovakia are being determined by the Governments of Italy and Germany without reference to the Governments of Great Britain and France?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 3rd November, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Are we to infer that the Four-Power Pact has already become a Two-Power Pact?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government were consulted by the German and Italian Governments with regard to the establishment of a new frontier between Czechoslovakia and Hungary?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has it ever happened in British history before that we have guaranteed a frontier as to the drawing up of which we have not been even consulted?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will be aware, from the Prime Minister's answer to a previous question in regard to the guarantee, that it is necessary to wait for a further statement from His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Have we not been told by the Minister for the Co-ordination

of Defence that the guarantee has been in force for many weeks?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman should pay due heed to the statement made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.

Mr. Benn: How can we be waiting for some decision as to the guarantee, when a Minister has announced that it is already in force?

Mr. Butler: We are not waiting for a decision. We are waiting for a further statement as to the position regarding the guarantee.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Was it not agreed that there was to be a general conversation between the four Powers, and has not that been completely abandoned?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Munich Agreement provided that if a settlement of this question was not reached in three months, the matter would be considered afresh by the Munich Powers. In this case, Czechoslovakia and Hungary asked the German and Italian Governments to mediate on the question. Therefore, the position is perfectly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister what has been the result of the representations made by His Majesty's Government to the Japanese Government on the situation caused by the growth of smuggling in Northern China; and what action has been taken to check this illicit traffic?

Mr. Butler: According to my Noble Friend's information, there has been an appreciable decrease in smuggling in North China.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Member say whether any representations have been made by the United States Government on the subject?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister what has been the result of the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo, on 13th July, with regard to the restoration to the Shanghai Municipal Council of the districts of Hongkew and Yangtzepoo?

Mr. Butler: Discussions in regard to this matter are still continuing, and I am unable to make a statement at present.

Commander Marsden: As it is as long ago as July last that these representations were made, can my hon. Friend say whether any advance has been made at all?

Mr. Butler: I have said that discussions are proceeding, but I am unable to make a statement at the present time. I realise the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the reply received from the Japanese Government in July as to the effect of the reorganisation by the Japanese of the Peking-Mukden and other railways in North China upon British rights and interests in these railways?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo made further representations on 3rd September urging that the British rights deriving from the Agreements of 1898 and 1902 should be restored. The reply of the Japanese Government is still awaited.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British trade in North China is still held up by the continued imposition of an inconvertible paper currency by the Japanese; whether any, and, if so, what, action has been taken by the Japanese Government to permit the resumption of normal credit facilities; and, if not, what action is he taking in the matter?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are aware of the position and it is being closely watched.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Japan's action in hampering foreign trade carried on by sea on the East of China, the British Government will pay increased attention to the importance of railway communication between Burma and South-western China and will co-operate with the Chinese Government, which has now the matter in hand, in constructing both a road and a railway which will carry British exports free from Japanese interference?

Mr. Butler: It is hoped that an all-weather road from Lashio to Yunnanfu

will be open to regular traffic shortly. The practicability of constructing a railway is, I understand, now being examined by the financial interests concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AND CANADA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the assurance given by President Roosevelt on 18th August that the people of the United States of America would not stand idly by if the domination of Canadian soil was threatened by any other Empire; and whether any further communications have passed on the subject?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom took note at the time of President Roosevelt's friendly reference on behalf of the United States of America to the Dominion which is their neighbour. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Mander: Do not the British Government heartily welcome this important statement by the great democracy of the West?

Mr. Butler: I have expressed our view in the answer that I have given.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member said that the British Government had taken note. Do not they go further and heartily welcome it?

Mr. Butler: I said they had taken note of the President's friendly reference.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what was the nationality of the aeroplanes which recently attacked the British ships "Margaret Rose" and "Yorkbrook," in Almeria harbour?

Mr. Butler: The reports received do not indicate the identity of the aircraft in question.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Member say that the British Government cannot ascertain the nationality of these aeroplanes responsible for these outrages against British ships?

Mr. Butler: I said that the report already received did not indicate the identity of the aircraft.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member make an effort to ascertain the identity of the aeroplanes?

Mr. Butler: I cannot guarantee to obtain that information.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask what reports the Government have called for in this matter?

Mr. Butler: We receive reports of this nature from our representatives abroad.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Government called for any special report on this subject?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Member must understand that we naturally receive reports from our representatives on matters of this kind.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it a fact that the Government do not want to be properly informed, so that they will not be able to answer questions?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member consult the officers of British ships that have been bombed in Spain, and who are now present in this country?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Member knows, we hare received information from ships' officers, and we are always ready to receive any information that may be put before us.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the Under-Secretary say in whose constituency Almeria is situated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister on what public statement or statements by Signor Mussolini His Majesty's Government founded their view that, from the time of the first conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, Signor Mussolini had made it known that he was not prepared to see General Franco defeated in the present war in Spain; what were the terms of such statements, and on what dates were they made?

Mr. Butler: The first conversations regarding the entry into force of the Anglo-Italian Agreement took place in June, and I am sure that the hon. Member will not have forgotten Signor Mussolini's speech at Genoa on 14th May.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government will give a guarantee to the French Government of their Franco-Spanish frontier?

Mr. Butler: No request for such a guarantee has been received from the French Government, and I have, therefore, no statement to make.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not the policy of His Majesty's Government to make the Franco-Spanish frontier a Franco-Franco frontier?

Mr. Mander: Are British guarantees of frontiers any good to anybody?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of General Franco's failure to carry out his pledge to pay compensation to British skippers and seamen, as announced to the House by the Prime Minister on 26th July, and the renewed bombing of British ships, he will now again recall the British representative from Burgos?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the House on 14th November, discussions regarding the proposed commission of inquiry have been held with the interests concerned and the Government are now approaching General Franco's administration with detailed proposals on the subject.

Mr. Roberts: I understand that discussions are continuing about the damage done in the past. Are discussions taking place about ships which are being bombed daily at present?

Mr. Butler: These discussions range over the whole question of deliberate attack. We are proposing certain machinery in the form of a commission to look into these attacks and to consider questions such as what compensation should be paid. Therefore, all such attacks regarded as deliberate may be treated as coming within the discussions of the tribunal which we hope will be established.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it proper to demand compensation from a Government you do not recognise?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have His Majesty's Government made any protest either in Burgos, Rome or Berlin against the air blockade now being carried out, which is more intense than the air blockade of last June?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the hon. Member not know whether a protest has been made or not?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member knows that protests have been made.

Mr. Benn: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any pledge from the Italian Government that further supplies of arms and men to General Franco shall cease as soon as the Anglo-Italian Agreement is in force?

Mr. Butler: The assurances given by the Italian Government were described by the Prime Minister during the course of the Debate on 2nd November. These take effect from the date on which the Anglo-Italian Agreement comes into force.

Miss Rathbone: Are these assurances likely to be worth any more than the Italian signature to the Non-Intervention Pact in the last week of August, 1936?

Mr. Crowder: asked the Prime Minister what is the position regarding the Republican Spanish warship "José Luis Diez," which took refuge in Gibraltar on 27th August last, and has been undergoing repairs there; and whether similar facilities will be afforded to any Spanish Nationalist warship entering British ports?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government originally informed the Spanish Government that they would permit a period of three weeks as from 18th October in which the vessel should effect the minimum of repairs necessary to allow her to put to sea, these repairs to be of such a kind as not to add in any way to the vessel's fighting force. The Spanish Government were also informed that His Majesty's Government were unable to offer the destroyer any of the facilities of the naval dockyard at Gibraltar for the execution of the repairs. As delay occurred and as the damage proved to be more extensive than had originally appeared, His Majesty's Government finally decided that the original period should be extended to eight weeks, starting from 11th November, this period to cover the time necessary for collecting the material required, the actual execution of the repairs and the departure of the vessel from

Gibraltar. In accordance with the attitude which His Majesty's Government have adopted in the Spanish conflict, they would be prepared to give similar treatment to any warship belonging to General Franco which sought refuge in a British port in similar circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take with reference to the demand for the return of the colonies put forward by Herr Hitler at Godesberg; and whether he will give an assurance that it is still the policy of the Government that this matter will only be considered as part of the general settlement?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. V. Adams) on l0th November.

Mr. Mander: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be good enough to give a specific answer to the latter part of my question, as to whether the Colonial problem is to be considered only as part of a general settlement?

Sir J. Simon: Statements have been made on that subject.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the representations of British colonists in Tanganyika asking that the territory should not be Handed over to Germany?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): A telegram was sent to the Governor yesterday authorising him to announce that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had given an answer to a question by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on the previous day to the effect that His Majesty's Government are not contemplating transfer of any territories under British administration.

Mr. Mander: Will the Minister make it clear, in view of the great anxiety among all classes of the population there at the present time, that they do not contemplate in any foreseeable period handing over territory to the bullies of Berlin?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that in any conversations or negotiations regarding German colonial claims British influence will be used as far as possible to ensure that no change will take place which is not endorsed by a majority of the adult population of the Colonies concerned?

Sir J. Simon: As the Prime Minister indicated in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) on 14th November, and as my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has repeated to-day, His Majesty's Government are not contemplating the transfer of any territories under British administration. In this matter His Majesty's Government must, of course, give full attention to the views of the populations of any territory concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGUESE COLONIES.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that this country is no longer bound by the convention with Germany, signed secretly in 1898, to settle which of the Portuguese Colonies in Africa should be assigned to this country and to Germany in the event of Portugal desiring to sell part of her African Colonies?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government do not regard this pre-war Convention as having any operative force to-day.

Mr. Henderson: Can the hon. Member say whether the statement of policy which was made by the ex-Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) on 21st December, 1937, when he stated that His Majesty's Government did not intend to make any deal with Germany in the Colonial field at the expense of other Colonial Powers, still stands?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member has put a question on the Order Paper which I have answered. I really cannot give any further answer.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the declaration made by the Prime Minister of Portugal on 16th October that this

country was pledged to defend Portuguese colonies; and whether the declaration secretly signed on 14th October, 1899, which renewed the Treaty of Alliance with Portugal, as a guarantee of Portugal's colonial possessions against attack, is still in force?

Mr. Butler: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. It has repeatedly been stated in this House that His Majesty's Government have always admitted, and still admit, the validity of the Treaties between themselves and Portugal.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make representations to the Prime Minister to publish the information concerning some of these secret Treaties with regard to Portugal, so that we may know where we stand if we are involved in war on behalf of Portugal?

Mr. Hannah: Does not this Treaty date from the fourteenth century?

Mr. Mander: May we be informed whether the obligations of this Treaty to-day are held to be as binding as the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: The validity of the Treaties between ourselves and Portgual is admitted and accepted by his Majesty s Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RETIRED OFFICERS (ACTIVE SERVICE ORDER).

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that by A.F.O. No. 2478 of 1938, officers on the retired list who have received promotion on their retirement when called up for service must revert to the rank they last held before retirement; and whether this order will be reconsidered?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining the reasons for the recent Fleet Order. The former regulation whereby retired officers recalled to active service were allowed to retain the uniform and title of a rank higher than that to which they were appointed, was found during the recent emergency to create such inconveniences that it was decided that all such officers


should in future wear the uniform and use the title proper to the appointments they were given. I am confident that all officers will accept this modification as one necessitated by changed conditions, and I need hardly assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it involves no alteration in the pay of these officers nor in their right to use the higher title and appropriate uniform when they are not actually in service.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: While thanking the hon. Member for his reply, is it a fact that there was no suggestion that when these officers were subsequently recalled for duty they would have to surrender their rank? I understand from the answer that when they are recalled to the Service they will retain their rank and wear the uniform of a lower rank. I should like to ask the hon. Member whether there is any need for that, not in regard to senior rank officers but in regard to officers under flag rank?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Order does not apply to flag officers. The purpose of the change is to employ as many retired officers as possible in an emergency. As the hon. and gallant Member points out, there is no change as regards the rank and seniority of retired officers when they are called up; their position is exactly the same. His rank and seniority for command when on the active list is the same. All we say is that for the purpose of removing a discrepancy we are asking him to wear the uniform appropriate to his rank.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: But may I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: The answer has been given twice.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There is a considerable amount of feeling on this matter.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT VESSELS (THAMES APPROACHES).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any arrangements have been made, and, if so, of what nature, for the Admiralty to co-operate in the defence of London against air attack by the stationing of suitable anti-aircraft vessels in the approaches to the Thames, and in the vicinity of the Port of London?

Mr. Shakespeare: The fullest consideration has already been given to the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers, but I regret that it would not be consistent with the public interest to disclose the conclusions which were reached or the measures taken to give effect to them.

SABOTAGE.

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty particulars of the number of attempts wilfully to damage ships of the Royal Navy during the 12 months ended the last convenient date; and what action has been taken against the offenders?

Mr. Shakespeare: Since the reply I gave the hon. Member on 27th April last, there has been one further case of suspected sabotage to His Majesty's ships. During the last 12 months no case has arisen in which the formal investigations revealed conclusively who were directly responsible, and the latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Member give particulars of the suspected case?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think it is in the public interest to do so. It was a very minor case.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES.

TANGANYIKA.

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Tanganyika German planters are heavily subsidised by the Government of the Reich and, therefore, able to compete on unfair terms with planters of other nationalities; that German Government credit is being used to buy up the land of non-Germans and that, in general, the German community is becoming a totalitarian State within another State; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware of the statements which have recently been made on this subject, and I am asking the Governor to furnish me with the facts. Until I receive them I am not in a position to consider what action should he taken.

Mr. Thorne: Are German planters in Tanganyika allowed to sell their own produce in their own way without any interference from anybody?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that no restrictions beyond formal restrictions are put upon them or anybody else.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not true that a German company is operating in Tanganyika through which all these planters have to sell their produce?

Mr. MacDonald: I am asking the Governor to let me have a full report of the facts so that I can consider the situation.

Mr. Paling: Will that report include information as to the intensive Nazi propaganda going on in the Colony?

Mr. MacDonald: I am asking for a full report.

Mr. Price: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations direct from the planters of Tanganyika?

Mr. MacDonald: I have received communications from one or two individuals in the Colony, and as a result of these communications and also as a result of the hon. Member's question, I am making inquiries.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the result of the anxieties expressed at the last Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, any steps are proposed to deal with the health conditions of the Lupa goldfield in Tanganyika?

Nationality.
Number of Holdings.
Leasehold Acres.
Freehold Acres.
Total Acres.


British (Other than British Indian or South African Dutch).
493
380,410
269,811
650,221


British Indian
349
152,347
162,955
315,302


South African Dutch
47
27,493
21,437
48,930


German
546
332,162
118,367
450,529


Greek
226
96,644
109,360
206,004

At the end of 1935, the total European community was estimated to be 8,455, which included 2,665 Germans. The total of domestic exports in 1935 was £3,445,143. 68.6 per cent. of the total was exported to the British Empire. The total area of the Territory is about 360,000 square miles, which includes about 20,000 square miles of water.

Mr. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 13th July in which I gave an account of steps recently taken. I have no doubt that the Government of Tanganyika will bear carefully in mind the views expressed by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that they will consider, in the light of those views, what further measures can be taken to improve health conditions in the Lupa goldfields area.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many land holdings there were in Tanganyika in 1935; how many were British, German, Indian and Greek, respectively; what was the European and German population; what were the total exports; what amount of that export trade went to the British Empire; and what is the square mileage of Tanganyika?

Mr. MacDonald: As the reply contains a large number of statistics, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The holdings of alienated agricultural and pastoral land, as at 31st December, 1935, numbered 2,317, covering a total of 1,930,992 acres alienated. 1,123,674 acres were held under lease and 807,318 acres were freehold.

The British, German, Indian and Greek holdings were as follow:

LAND ALIENATION.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what extent and/or proportion of land is held by native owners and non-native owners in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Kenya, respectively; and how far alienation of land from native owners to European and other non-native owners is discouraged or prohibited in these three areas?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is necessarily long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Approximately 11,300 square miles of land in Kenya had been alienated to non-natives on 31st December, 1937. On that date there was approximately 48,300 square miles of native reserves to which some 2,600 square miles are shortly to be added. In addition, there are some 160,000 square miles of Crown lands, the greater part of which is in native occupation. I have no detailed information available for Nigeria and the Gold Coast, but I am in communication with the Governors of these territories and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

As regards the second part of the question, alienation of land in the Kenya Native Reserves to non-natives is prohibited except to a limited extent for purposes which can be shown to be beneficial to the natives. In the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast the control over native lands is vested in the Governor, and rights of occupancy which he may grant to non-natives are limited to a maximum term of 99 years. In the Gold Coast Colony and in Ashanti rights over land may be acquired by non-natives by direct negotiation with the owners. In most cases the rights cannot be for a longer period than 99 years and are subject to validation by Concessions Courts, which are empowered to impose other conditions and restrictions. All lands in the Northern Provinecs of Nigeria are declared by law to be native lands, and their control is vested in the Governor who may grant certain limited rights of occupancy therein to non-natives. In the Southern Provinces no non-native may acquire any right or interest in land from a native except with the approval in writing of the Governor.

EDUCATION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are made for school medical inspection; what facilities exist for dental treatment for school children in the Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast and Nigeria Colonies; and what Government scholarships for higher education in Britain are given in each of these Colonies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: With regard to the first two parts of the question, the latest information available is contained in the reports of the Medical and Education Departments of the Colonies concerned. I am arranging for copies of these reports to be placed in the Library of the House. As regards the last part of the question, no such scholarships are at present awarded in Sierra Leone or in the Gambia. In Nigeria two scholarships have recently been granted and the early grant of others is being considered. In the Gold Coast there is provision for two or more Government scholarships to be awarded annually, and the number in existence at the end of 1937 was four.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the extension of these scholarships to the territories where scholarships are not at present enjoyed, and also will he give very serious attention to the position with regard to medical and dental inspections for school children?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the first part, the whole question of higher education in these Colonies will be considered by the Governors' Conference when it meets next year.

KENYA.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements were made in the Colony of Kenya to ensure that proper precautions were taken for protection against air raids and other attacks in connection with the recent emergency?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Air-raid precaution plans for the main centres, and other schemes for the defence of the Colony generally had been prepared and would have been put into operation if it had been necessary.

Mr. Charles Brown: May I ask whether effective precautions were taken in Croydon?

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has reached any conclusions from his inquiries into the employment of children and young persons in Kenya?

Mr. MacDonald: I have received an advance copy of the report of the committee appointed in Kenya to consider


this question. I have not yet formed my final conclusions on it, as I am waiting for the views of the Governor which I expect to receive in the immediate future. As soon as possible after that I shall make an announcement on the subject.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend place a copy of the report in the Library of the House?

Mr. MacDonald: I expect to have some printed copies of the report very shortly, and I will then arrange for them to be put in the Library of the House.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Kenya intends to take a share together with the other East Africa Governments, according to the recommendation of the commission on higher education, in the costs of erecting the new university college in Uganda?

Mr. MacDonald: The Governor of Kenya proposes, subject to the approval of the Legislative Council, to contribute£50,000 towards the College Endowment Fund. So far as I am aware, it has not yet been possible to bring the matter before the Council.

GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN GIRLS.

Mr. Hall Caine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of German and Austrian girls who have been admitted into Kenya and Tanganyika in order to take up employment during the last two years; and why, if these opportunities for employment exist, adequate information is not issued in this country, so as to interest British girls?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not in possession of the figures, but I will inquire of the Governors of the Territories concerned. Information as to opportunities for employment in these territories is readily obtainable from the East African Dependencies Trade and Information Office in London. Moreover, this Office is in close touch with the Society of Over-sea Settlement for British Women in London, and they, in turn, are represented in East Africa by the East African Women's League.

SIERRA LEONE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will indicate in what particular the issue

of the "African Sentinel," prohibited from entry into Sierra Leone, is deemed to be seditious?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The section of the ordinance under which action was taken provides for the prohibition of importation of literature which is "seditious, defamatory, scandalous or demoralising." The entry of the issue of the "African Sentinel" in question was prohibited by reason of the content of the article beginning on page 3.

Mr. Adams: As a purchaser and reader of this magazine, may I ask the Minister whether he would not, upon a reperusal of this issue, agree that it contains nothing except fair comment on details of our own trade union movement?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot agree with that. My recollection of the article is that there were some passages in it which came fully under the description which I have given.

Mr. Adams: If, in future, articles similar to that complained of are excluded from the journal, will the prohibition on its entry into Sierra Leone be withdrawn?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a matter which I must leave, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Government on the spot.

Mr. Adams: Is it not being excluded on the ground of being a trade union journal?

CEYLON.

Commander Marsden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (I) whether he can make any statement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government regarding the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine into the workings of the constitution in Ceylon, with a view to effecting changes therein;.
(2) whether he has considered the memorandum signed by the elected and nominated representatives in council of all the indigenous minorities in Ceylon, setting forth suggested changes in the extent of the representation of those communities under any scheme of constitutional change in the colony; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he can state


the means by which His Majesty's Government propose to implement the pronouncement of the previous Secretary of State for the Colonies that selected changes as suggested could not be expected to produce good results unless they were adopted with the genera/ consent of all the important interests in Ceylon;
(2) whether His Majesty's Government are aware of the complaints of the minority communities in Ceylon of the manner in which the constitution is being worked by the major community; and what are they doing to meet these?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have received a number of representations from all communities in Ceylon on the subject of the working of the constitution. I hope shortly to publish despatches which have passed between the Governor and myself on the subject, pending which I can make no statement.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an ex-President of the Council told some of the minority members that if they wanted anything done for internal affairs they must combine with the Cingalese members in trying to get the powers which the Governor refused?

Mr. MacDonald: The Governor has had many conversations with representatives of the minority communities as well as others while considering questions of constitutional reform, and he will bear these considerations in mind in making proposals to me.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five years ago a Motion was moved in this House urging Parliament to appoint a committee to inquire into the defects of the constitution, which was only defeated by Members of the Government voting against it? Will he therefore not reconsider that proposal?

Mr. MacDonald: The whole question is under consideration, and the result of our considerations will appear in the despatches when I am able to publish them, which I hope will be in the near future.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government are aware of

the widespread and growing fear among large sections of the people in Ceylon that constitutional changes may be in contemplation without the previous appointment and advice of a Royal Commission; and what action he is taking to allay this?

Mr. MacDonald: While I have received representations from a small number of individuals and bodies in Ceylon in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission to advise on constitutional changes, I am not aware that there is at present any wide demand for such an appointment. The whole question is under consideration.

Mr. Raikes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of a statement by the leader of the Ceylon State Council and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Ministers that the exclusion of any representatives of the minority communities in Ceylon was deliberately planned by the leaders of the majority community in order to secure a Board of Ministers composed entirely of the members of that community; and what action does he propose to take in this matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that allegations of this nature have been made; but I have been informed by the Governor that not a single Sinhalese leader with whom he has spoken has expressed himself in favour of a Pan-Sinhalese Ministry.

Mr. Raikes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the strong dissatisfaction of the domiciled Indian population in Ceylon with regard to the proposed disfranchisement, in local government elections, of the Indian estate workers possessing residential qualifications; and what steps does he propose to take to meet this?

Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that the Village Communities Bill, passed by the State Council of Ceylon, originally contained a provision depriving certain estate labourers of the franchise in local elections on a racial basis. I was unable to advise His Majesty to assent to a Bill containing such a provision, and an amending Bill, which is not open to the charge of racial discrimination, has now been passed.

PALESTINE.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total strength of the police and of His Majesty's Forces in Palestine; and what is the average cost per month falling upon the British Exchequer of these two forces?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The approximate strength of the personnel of the police, Royal Air Force, and Army serving in Palestine is at present 7,300, 700 and 15,500 respectively. I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give the average cost per month falling upon the British Exchequer in respect of the police. As regards the Air Force, the average monthly cost to the British Exchequer is about£30,000. The extra cost of maintaining the military forces in Palestine, over and above the cost of maintaining them at their normal stations, amounts to about £175,000 a month (exclusive of capital services).

Sir F. Sanderson: Can my right hon. Friend state whether the numbers are likely to be reduced in the near future, and also whether the Palestine Government contribute towards the cost?

Mr. MacDonald: The Palestine Government do make a considerable contribution towards the cost. With regard to the possibility of reducing the numbers, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of that in the immediate future, but I do hope that later on conditions may make that possible.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the police are now at full strength, or whether further recruits are required?

Mr. MacDonald: Further recruitment of British police is going on all the time. They are going out in batches of 100 or 150 as quickly as they can be absorbed in the local forces. I do not think the full complement which is required will be in Palestine for two months or so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is any difficulty being experienced in obtaining recruits for this service?

Mr. MacDonald: None, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman present before the proposed conference the suggestion which has been

made for a Legislative Assembly, which would eliminate the need for this?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to the position in Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: So far as the general situation regarding Palestine is concerned, I can add nothing at present to the recent statement on policy by His Majesty's Government and to answers which I gave to questions on 10th November. Preparations for the proposed discussions in London are continuing. In Palestine itself steps are being taken to restore the Government's authority throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

WORKERS' CONDITIONS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what specific administrative steps have been taken in the West Indies following the outbreaks, to improve the economic conditions of the workers and to raise the standards of living generally in the respective Islands?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It would be difficult to give a full reply to this question within the limits of a Parliamentary Answer. I may, however, refer to the fact that my Labour Adviser is now touring the West Indies, and that progress is being made with the appointment of Labour Officers and the provision of machinery for dealing with labour problems in the Colonies in that area. An Arbitration Tribunal has been appointed by the Governor of Trinidad under recently enacted local legislation to arbitrate on certain matters affecting wage rates in the oil industry, whilst in Jamaica a Conciliation Board was appointed in May of this year. This board has rendered valuable service as an intermediary between employers and employed, and various wage increases have been given.

In Trinidad an increase of the subsidy to the cocoa interest has been given in 1938. The Governor is now bringing forward proposals for an extensive programme of expenditure which is expected


to cover slum clearance, housing, hospital and school buildings and other measures of public benefit and to provide employment. In Jamaica work is continuing on the programme of the £2,000,000 loan details of which were given in my reply to the hon. Member on 18th May. In addition, legislation has been enacted to enable a loan of approximately £780,000 to be raised for the extension of land settlement and other purposes. In British Guiana an inquiry has recently been made into the question of improving the efficiency of the mills in the rice industry, and other problems connected with that industry are under consideration. The report on this inquiry, which was carried out by an officer with extensive experience of the rice industry in Malaya, is now awaited. In this Colony also increases of pay have been approved for employés in the lowest grades of the public services, and increased expenditure on public works has been sanctioned, partly with the object of relieving unemployment.

DISTURBANCES, JAMAICA (INQUIRY).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether inquiries were made into the conduct of the police and authorities concerned with the maintenance of order in Jamaica in the disturbances last summer; and whether a report has yet been made available?

Mr. M. MacDonald: There has been some unavoidable delay in pursuing the inquiry into the disturbances in Jamaica as the Commissioners appointed to investigate the trouble at Frome were unable to serve further owing to absence from the island or ill health. It was, therefore, necessary for the Governor to appoint a fresh Commission to inquire into the subsequent disturbances in May and June, and I have learnt from the Press that its sittings have just been concluded. I hope to receive the Commission's report at an early date.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be will agree to adopt the principle of collective bargaining between the authorities and the staffs of the Civil Service in the British West Indies; and to the setting of up staff associations representing the civil servants employed in the British

West Indies for the purpose of representing the views of those staffs to the authorities on a basis similar to that in force in this country?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The principle of consultation with recognised associations of Colonial civil servants is one with which I am in sympathy, and is already recognised in various parts of the Colonial Empire. Its extension in practice must no doubt be governed by local circumstances, but I am quite prepared at any time to consider any concrete proposals which may be made in connection with any particular colony.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the terms of reference for the Royal Commission that is to consider the question of Workmen's Compensation; and who is to be appointed on the Royal Commission?

Sir J. Simon: In reply to a question on Monday last by the hon. Member for the Consett division (Mr. David Adams), my right hon. Friend gave the name of the chairman and the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. I am not yet in a position to add to that statement.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the need for making arrangements for the Royal Commission to visit big industrial centres in order that the men and women who have suffered from industrial diseases and accidents can give first-hand information

Sir J. Simon: I feel sure that that will be considered.

Mr. Tinker: When does the right hon Gentleman expect to be in a position to let us know the composition of the Commission?

Sir J. Simon: I am sorry I cannot add to the answer now. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait a few days, and I will communicate with him.

GERMANY (PRESS ATTACKS ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the German Government to


the protest made on behalf of His Majesty's Government following the attacks on the Leader of the Opposition and other Members of this House?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir, but I understand that the German Minister for Propaganda has stated to the correspondent of Reuter's Agency that he did not approve of the publication of the statements in question by the newspaper concerned, and that he would have the mistake immediately cleared up.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not be content with an explanation given to a newspaper correspondent?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Gentleman will have in mind that the communication was made only on Monday and that when it was made the Minister responsible was not in Berlin.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that these attacks have enormously sent up the prestige in this country of the hon. Members attacked?

CONGO BASIN TREATIES.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to give effect to the recommendation of M. van Zeeland regarding the generalising of the system of the open door which obtains in the Conventional Basin of the Congo; and whether, as a first step, he will suggest the exclusion of the Colonial areas from the scope of the Ottawa Agreements?

Mr. M. MacDonald: His Majesty's Government have already announced their readiness to discuss the abatement of particular preferences in non-selfgoverning territories in cases where such preferences can be shown to place undue restriction on international trade. They do no consider that the present is a propitious time for going further in this direction.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: How would the suggestion be carried out?

Mr. Leach: Is it not the case that if you delay this in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests, you are delaying the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in regard to appeasement?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BALLOON BARRAGE TRIALS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air what provision he has made to prevent trials with the balloon barrage from being a danger to aircraft in conditions of bad visibility?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The instructions are that balloons should not be flown in conditions of bad visibility, that is when the horizontal visibility from an aircraft is less than 1,100 yards, or at night when aircraft lights cannot be seen at that distance.

AEROPLANE PRODUCTION.

Sir Louis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of types of military aeroplanes which are now being manufactured in Great Britain; and the number of such types of which mass production is being carried out?

Sir K. Wood: The number of types, including those for training purposes and for the Fleet Air Arm, at present under construction in Great Britain and being delivered to the Royal Air Force is 23. This excludes new types in various stages of construction for future delivery. Methods appropriate to large scale production are applied so far as is practicable to all types which are required in large numbers.

Sir L. Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say the number of types likely to be produced during the next 12 months and also what percentage of the aeroplanes now being turned out, are looked upon as having been produced on mass production lines?

Sir K. Wood: I would like to communicate with my hon. Friend on the question. I am endeavouring as far as possible to reduce the number of types. I would like my hon. Friend and the House to understand, however, that of that number of 23, some half are types for specialised training and the like.

STATIONS, NORFOLK.

Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Air what decisions have been reached with regard to the proposals for an aerodrome at Langham, Norfolk?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. It has been decided to build an air station at Langham and action to acquire the necessary land is now proceeding.

Sir T. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of civilians employed in officers' messes in Norfolk aerodromes, and the terms of their engagements?

Sir K. Wood: Seventy-six civilians are at present employed as mess stewards, waiters, cooks and batmen at officers' messes at Royal Air Force stations in Norfolk. The men are on a weekly engagement with a minimum attendance of 48 hours a week, and their wages range from 40s. to 56s. a week. Their conditions of service are those generally applicable to civilian employés of these grades at Royal Air Force stations.

DEFENCE MEASURES (LIVERPOOL AND GLASGOW).

Mr. Logan: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is prepared to increase the number of fighter-aeroplane squadrons in the North of England with sufficient allocated to prevent air raids upon Liverpool by enemy bombers?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress is being made in the establishment of the balloon barrage system of defence at Glasgow and Clydeside?

Sir K. Wood: It would not be in the public interest to give particulars of the defence arrangements for any particular part of the country, but protection for the areas referred to is being provided by both general and local defences. As announced in my speech during the Debate on the Address last Thursday, balloon barrage units are being formed, amongst other places, at both Liverpool and Glasgow.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be in the interests of the country, if the people were assured that progress was being made with these defences? That is all we ask.

SUPERMARINE "SPITFIRE" FACTORY.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what date was authority given to Lord Nuffield to erect a factory for the production of super-marine "Spitfire" aircraft; on what date the site of the new factory was ready to

commence building; on what date the building commenced; and on what date the building of the factory is expected to be finished?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the question is 23rd May, 1938. With regard to the second and third parts, the selected site was ready for the commencement of the preliminary work of drainage and excavation on 15th July and the work was begun that day. The erection of steel work has now commenced. With regard to the fourth part of the question, I am advised that the whole of the factory is expected to be completed in August next but part of the factory will be available for production, I hope, in February next.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it satisfactory that a period of four months should have passed before they began to erect the steel work upon the site?

Sir K. Wood: I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that a great deal of preliminary work had to he done, and I would suggest to him that in fact a great deal of expedition has been shown by Lord Nuffield in this matter.

BOMBER AIRCRAFT, EQUIPMENT.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any bombing aircraft squadrons were detailed to proceed to France during the recent crisis; whether any of these squadrons were equipped with the Browning gun; and whether he can give any estimate of the time it will take to substitute the Browning gun, with turrets, for the obsolete Lewis gun in all Service bombing squadrons?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to disclose any such information regarding plans for the air defence of this country. As regards the last part of the question, the replacement of the Lewis gun, which forms a part of the equipment of certain bomber aircraft, by a more modern type is now being undertaken and. will be completed early next year.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what date negotiations began with an American film company for the production of a film to


stimulate interest and recruiting in the Royal Air Force; on what date, and for what reason, these negotiations fell through; for how long, and with how many other film companies, have negotiations been proceeding with a similar object; and whether any person other than the Secretary of State has authority to bring this matter to a decision?

Sir K. Wood: Discussions have taken place with a number of British companies, some of which are associated with American companies, for the production of films of the nature referred to. Assistance has been afforded by the Royal Air Force in the production of three films, one of which has already been exhibited, while a second has just been completed. As regards the last part of the question, my approval is normally obtained before assistance is given in the production of films of a major character.

AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE, CANADA.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement concerning the manufacture of aircraft in Canada?

Sir K. Wood: I will defer my reply till the end of Questions.

Later—

Sir K. Wood: Negotiations with the representatives of the Canadian industry have now been successfully concluded, and agreements have been signed under which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have placed an initial order for the manufacture of large bomber aircraft; and the Canadian aircraft firms concerned undertake to maintain during the next 10 years a manufacturing capacity available for further potential orders of a similar character if required.
The contractual arrangements have been made with the new central company, Canadian Associated Aircraft, Limited, which has been brought into being expressly for the purpose of this scheme. That company will control the whole scheme and provide two central establishments, located at Montreal and Toronto respectively. These two central establishments will themselves in due course develop manufacturing facilities, whilst also serving as central erecting establishments fed by components supplied by six associated aircraft companies, namely:


Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited.
Canadian Vickers, Limited. Fairchild Aircraft, Limited.
Fleet Aircraft, Limited.
National Steel Car Corporation, Limited.
Ottawa Car Manufacturing Company, Limited.

The initial order will ensure immediate implementation of the plans and will enable the increased potential progressively to be developed. It is the intention that further orders should be placed as and when necessary to maintain the progressive development of the manufacturing potential and the desired flow of production. In addition to the arrangements for group manufacture of large bomber aircraft, negotiations are now proceeding in London with two Canadian companies for the manufacture of fighter and general reconnaissance types, at Fort William and Vancouver respectively.
I should like to express the thanks of His Majesty's Government to Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues in our Mission; and to Sir Charles Gordon, of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Morris Wilson, of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. A. B. Purvis. of Canadian Industries, Limited, and to Sir Thomas White, of the Bank of Commerce, all of whom greatly facilitated the course of negotiations.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some further particulars with regard to the initial order?

Sir K. Wood: The type of aircraft to be manufactured under the initial order is the "Hampden," which is now in production in this country. The aircraft orders are due for delivery during 1940, and although it would not be in the public interest to disclose the numbers ordered, I can say that the order represents a considerable development of Canadian manufacturing capacity in preparation for the large production programme which will call for aircraft of a still more advanced type running in parallel with the later stages of the initial order.

Sir P. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman state at this stage how the Canadian machine compares in price with the English machine?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down. The matter has been the subject of careful negotiation and scrutiny so far as the Treasury is concerned, and I think that on the whole a reasonable price has been arranged.

Sir H. Croft: Would it be possible to arrange for any percentage of British workers to take part in the construction of these factories, or to work in them afterwards?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question down.

Mr. Bellenger: Will these contracts which are being placed in Canada be subject to the same price control as contracts placed in this country?

Sir K. Wood: I should like notice of that question. I know that very careful consideration has been given to all those matters.

Mr. E. J. Williams: In view of the enormous amount of unemployment in the distressed areas ought not some of this work to be allocated to those areas?

Sir K. Wood: While I have due regard to the necessities of the distressed areas, obviously there are a good many more implications in this scheme.

Mr. Buchanan: Has the Minister really come to the conclusion that with 2,000,000 unemployed here there are not sufficient persons in this country to produce these aircraft?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but it must be obvious to the House that there are other and important considerations.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not aware that this is a sign of inefficiency on the part of the Government rather than of lack of efficiency on the part of the people?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, and I must say that I think that question shows a very false and small conception of the position.

Mr. Petherick: Is it not a fact that the Opposition have been constantly clamouring for Empire aeroplanes?

Mr. Simmonds: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that these arrangements have been carried through

in harmonious accord with the Canadian Government, and has he in mind making similar arrangements in any other part of the Empire?

Sir K. Wood: That is a matter for further consideration. So far as the Canadian Government are concerned, this has been a matter of negotiation between His Majesty's Government and the Canadian industry, and, of course, the Canadian Government have been kept fully informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

ENSIGN AIR LINERS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the Ensign type of air liner will be in regular service upon the air routes of Imperial Airways, Limited?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The first aircraft of this class is now in regular service on the London—Paris route and other aircraft of this class will be in service shortly.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say anything concerning the use of this type of aircraft on the Empire services and when they will commence?

Captain Balfour: There are now two of these aircraft at Croydon, and by the end of November there will be five. I cannot give any definite date when they will be on the service.

Mr. Perkins: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether these machines are entirely satisfactory and up to specification?

Captain Balfour: The machines have passed their certificate of airworthiness test. Whether they have given satisfaction from the commercial point of view is for the company, and not for my Department, to decide.

MUNICIPAL AERODROMES (GLASGOW).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has received representations regarding the establishment of a municipal aerodrome at Glasgow; and does he intend to take any action?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, As my right hon. Friend stated on 18th May, the arrangement for the time being is that Renfrew is the recognised civil aerodrome


for south-west Scotland, and the Royal Air Force aerodrome at Abbotsinch is available as a standby when conditions render it undesirable for aircraft to use Renfrew. Negotiations are now proceeding which will, I hope, result in a more satisfactory permanent arrangement.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that while other representations may be made from other sources, Glasgow just now provides greater facilities for the training which is required in connection with municipal aerodromes and also for hospital treatment for people who may have to come from other parts of Scotland?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. I will undertake that those points shall be kept in view.

SERVICES, WESTERN ISLANDS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now considered the question of a seaplane service to operate between Greenock and the islands on the West Coast of Scotland; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Captain Balfour: There are already services to the Western Islands operated by landplane from Renfrew, and application has been made to the licensing authority for an additional service from Aberdeen to Stornoway by way of Inverness. No proposals have been made, so far as I am aware, for a seaplane service from Greenock, but this is a matter on which an operating company would now approach the licensing authority.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of the Western Islands that no self-respecting Highlander on his way to Glasgow or some other centre of civilisation will be stranded in the wilds of Greenock?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what action was taken by his Department on the plan put forward by the associated road operators three years ago for the use of transport in an emergency;
(2) whether he has any organisation in his Ministry to consider preparation for

an emergency such as the construction of strategic roads, the use and allocation of transport, and the storage of petrol;
(3) whether he has a complete list of motor-vehicles in this country, and, in order to prevent confusion in a crisis, he has ready a scheme for allotting these vehicles to their special duties?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): The organisation in my right hon. Friend's Department for dealing with transport in time of war, after careful examination of proposals by various bodies and after consultation with persons in the road transport industry, prepared a scheme of which brief particulars were published in the Press on 22nd September last. The Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, who are charged with responsible duties under the scheme, hold already records of goods vehicles and public service vehicles; these records will be amplified to make them more useful in emergency. Detailed records of private cars are kept by the local taxation licensing authorities. Strategic considerations and possible emergency demands are taken into account in determining the programme of road work to be carried out by, or assisted by, my right hon. Friend's Department. The maintenance of supplies of petrol and fuel does not fall within my right hon. Friend's province.

Sir A. Knox: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state why his Department issued this scheme only a week before the crisis, when there was obviously not enough time to get the whole thing into working order? Is it not advisable that he should have a department in his Ministry specially looking after preparations for an emergency?

Captain Hudson: There is such a deportment, and has been for some time.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is the department in touch with the associations representing those possessing motor vehicles?

Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir, in close touch.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the fact that there were not nearly enough vehicles in existence owing to the obstructive tactics of the Ministry of Transport under the Road and Rail Traffic Act?

ROAD SCHEMES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will urge Highland local authorities to make demands for concessions in connection with road schemes from contractors and others before asking free labour concessions from the road-workers?

Captain Hudson: It is the practice of local authorities to invite competitive tenders for road works, and my right hon. Friend is not clear how an authority could properly ask a contractor to make concessions which are not included in his tender. If the hon. Member will let my right hon. Friend know precisely what he has in mind, he will be happy to consider it.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that local authorities in the islands of Scotland have been demanding or expecting concessions from the road-workers in the form of free labour or reduction of wages, and does he not think it would be fairer to ask those who can best afford it to make concessions before asking the workers who are the poorest people concerned?

Captain Hudson: It would be difficult to deal with a complicated question like free labour by question and answer, but I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that supplementary question.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember that I am not advocating that concessions as such should be made by the contractors, but that they should be asked first, before asking for concessions from those less able to bear them?

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport the cost of road construction and reconstruction completed in each of the counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty up to the latest convenient date under the five-year plan of 100 per cent. grants from the Road Fund?

Captain Hudson: The cost of schemes completed by 30th September, 1938, was £21,476 in Inverness and £16,550 in Ross and Cromarty. The cost of work done by that date on all schemes, including those still in progress, was £208,137 in Inverness and £84,739 in Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that good progress is being made with the five-year road plan, which was supposed to be started in 1935, in view of the fact that such a ridiculously small total sum has been spent up to date, when three of the five years have passed?

Captain Hudson: Very good progress is being made.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that this five-year scheme will be finished in the time estimated at this rate of spending?

Captain Hudson: Yes, I think so.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the cost of road schemes provisionally approved as at 30th September, 1938, and estimated at over £99,000,000, and of the £15,750,000 paid thereunder, had been allocated to and paid in respect of Scotland, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of £100,000,000 for the five-year road programme is to be spent in Scotland?

Captain Hudson: Up to 30th September, 1938, schemes had been provisionally approved under the five-year programmes of highway authorities in Scotland of a total estimated cost of £13,272,000. Payments out of the Road Fund in respect of these schemes amounted at the date mentioned to £2,634,000.

Mr. Gibson: Has the whole of that £13,000,000 been put out to contract, or is a part being paid to the local authorities?

Captain Hudson: I think I should have notice of that question.

BRESSEY REPORT (TRUNK ROADS).

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to put any part of the Bressey Report into immediate effect; and, if so, which?

Captain Hudson: In so far as the report relates to trunk roads, my right hon. Friend is taking the appropriate steps to give effect to the recommendations respecting the extension of the Cromwell Road in Middlesex, the construction of a road from Coulsdon to


Crawley, and the Crawley by-pass, the Staines by-pass, and the Maidenhead bypass. As regards schemes relating to other roads, the initiative rests with the responsible highway authorities whose proposals my right hon. Friend has invited and now awaits.

Mr. Pilkington: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not think that some of the simpler parts of the report could be carried out immediately, such as making one road out of East Carriage Drive and Park Lane, London?

Captain Hudson: That is really a matter for the responsible highway authorities. My right hon. Friend is consulting with them to see whether we cannot get on with some of the schemes.

Sir P. Harris: Is it not a fact that the Cromwell Road section was agreed to apart from every detail, before the Bressey Report was published? Has not a lot of the property long been bought, and could not the Government get on with that scheme without any further delay, because it is a vital matter?

Captain Hudson: I do not think there has been any avoidable delay, but, as the hon. Baronet knows, the buying of property is a very lengthy process.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the recent speech delivered by the author of this report, indicating that a new type of authority was required before the report could be put into force, contained the views of the author of the report or of the Ministry?

Captain Hudson: I am afraid I could not answer that question. I was not responsible for that speech.

UNSAFE VEHICLES.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will devise means whereby the owner is made responsible for actions under the law when the driver is compelled to take on the road a vehicle that is unsafe and where the driver may lose his job if he drives to the danger of the public in order to keep within the time tables laid down by the employer?

Captain Hudson: Apart from any direct breach of Statute which the owner might commit in the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, he may be

liable to be charged with aiding and abetting an offence. If the hon. Member will let my right hon. Friend have details of any particular case that he has in mind, he will look into the matter.

Mr. Robinson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether they have not had reports from magistrates as to the very great difficulty in administering justice when a driver pleads guilty of having had to drive at a dangerous speed but will not give his employer's name away for fear of dismissal? Have not the magistrates to mete out justice under most difficult circumstances, and has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any information on that point?

Captain Hudson: This is primarily a matter for the Chairmen of the Traffic Commissioners, who are, as the House knows, independent of this House. Of course, they have certain powers of withdrawing licences or not renewing them.

Mr. Macquisten: Will my hon. and gallant Friend find out the names of these employers?

MOTOR-VEHICLE LICENCES.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether, for the purpose of assisting those persons who own motor vehicles and who for one reason or another are unable to take out motor licences as at present provided for in existing legislation; he will consider introducing amending legislation that will enable such persons to procure a special motor licence for use at week-ends?

Captain Hudson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not convinced either of the necessity or the desirability of this proposal, which would be open to serious abuse.

Mr. Day: Does not the Minister consider that this system would be of great assistance to poor people?

Captain Hudson: I think it would be a very difficult system to work in practice.

KINGSTON-GUILDFORD ROAD.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the necessity of a new through road from the Kingston by-pass to Guildford; and whether he will prevent the construction of local by-passes around Esher, Cobham and Ripley until the major scheme has been fully investigated?

Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend is advised that any necessary improvements can be effected on the existing alignment except between the Kingston by-pass and Cobham and at Ripley.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that now that the Kingston by-pass has been widened and modernised, this length of road between the by-pass and Guildford is a bottleneck to the whole of the roads to the south-west; and is it not imperative, in view of the fact that it is dangerously over-burdened, that the Minister should take a more radical attitude towards this problem?

Commander Marsden: Has any decision been arrived at with regard to the Kingston by-pass?

Captain Hudson: A local inquiry is being arranged to take place very shortly. As regards the other supplementary question, I understand that by the widening of the existing road and building certain bypasses a thoroughly satisfactory road can be constructed there at very much less cost than by making an entirely new road.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recent centralisation of the electricity supply for London and the Home Counties at a very small number of power stations, satisfactory arrangements have been made to ensure alternative sources of supply to this area in the event of any of the stations being damaged in air raids?

Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir. The Grid system not only connects such stations with one another but enables supplies to be drawn, if necessary, from generating stations in other parts of the country.

UNDERGROUND CABLES AND WIRES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether during the last six months he has given consideration to the urgency of placing electric wires and cables underground; and will he inform the House what steps his Department intend to take in this matter?

Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend has this matter continually in mind, but he is satisfied that the practical objections are such as to outweigh the advantages.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that even wires which are used for the control of anti-aircraft guns and searchlights are at present laid above ground, and would it not be necessary to put at least that system of communication below ground?

Captain Hudson: Every case is considered on its merits. It is a very expensive business putting high tension lines underground, and another thing is that the voltage, I understand, is inclined to get very much less than if you put it above ground.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not less expensive to do this work than to keep hundreds of thousands of men lying idle?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the serious diminution in the output of British cotton-spinning mills disclosed in the second annual Report of the Spindles Board, showing widespread closing of redundant mills; and what steps are being taken to deal with the consequent unemployment and loss of trade?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am aware of the position disclosed by this report, though I am glad to say that over the cotton industry as a whole there has been recently a decline in unemployment in which the spinning section has shared. The Government are keeping the interests of the industry continually in mind in connection with negotiations for trade agreements and, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne, they are now considering proposals for the reorganisation of the industry.

RUSSIA.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that re-exports of imported merchandise from Britain to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are carried to the extent of 55·7 per cent. in Soviet vessels and only 2.2 per cent. in British vessels; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to ensure a larger proportion being carried in British bottoms?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox).

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any further announcement about the negotiations with the United States of America for a trade agreement; whether the agreement has been concluded, and how soon its terms can be communicated to Parliament.

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I am happy to be able to inform the House that the negotiations have been successfully concluded and the Agreement will be signed in Washington to-morrow. I hope that copies of the text will be available in the Vote Office before the House rises tomorrow night.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say when the Agreement will come into force?

Mr. Stanley: Most of it will come into force on 1st January.

Sir Percy Hurd: Is there a simultaneous Agreement between Canada and the United States?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I understand that an Agreement between the United States of America and Canada is to be signed simultaneously.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MERSEYSIDE.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement of policy as to the setting up of a commission of inquiry to investigate the future need for the coordination of any or all of the local government services on Merseyside, upon which subject he gave answers in this House to the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) on 25th March and 9th June, 1937?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the matter but is satisfied that

an investigation such as the hon. Member has in mind would not in present circumstances serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Kirby: May I ask the hon. Gentle man the reason for that decision?

Mr. Bernays: It is essentially a matter for local initiative, and if the local authorities after further inquiries make representations to my right hon. Friend they will be considered.

SMOKE ABATEMENT (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether, in relation to replies he gave to the hon. Member for Everton in this House on 18th November, 1936, and 21st June, 1937, he will state what steps are being taken by the Corporation of Liverpool to reduce and overcome the smoke nuisance in Liverpool, particularly in the central and northern areas where it is a menace to property and health; and whether the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have yet reported upon, or in any way co-operated with the corporation, in an effort to overcome the smoke nuisance due to rail traffic in the central area?

Mr. Bernays: I am informed that the nuisance from manufacturing smoke in Liverpool has been considerably mitigated by the activities of the special smoke staff of the corporation. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that a conference is taking place to-day in Liverpool between representatives of the corporation and of the railway company, on data which have now been collected.

Mr. Kirby: On whose initiative is this conference being held?

Mr. Bernays: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are more smuts in the Merseyside area than anywhere else, and will he take steps to abate the nuisance?

Mr. Bernays: I will do what I can if the hon. Gentleman will tell me how.

HOUSING (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Health how many houses built by the Corporation of Birmingham have been


sold on mortgage through the municipal bank or building societies; how many of these houses have been vacated; and why, instead of going back to the Birmingham Estates Committee for letting, they are allowed to get into the hands of housing speculators?

Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information asked for is not available, but I will make inquiries and communicate with my hon. Friend.

IRISH RESIDENTS (MILITARY AND NATIONAL SERVICE).

Mr. Salt: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the declaration of Mr. de Valera that no Irishman resident in England would be liable for military service in this country; and whether these Irishmen are to be treated as eligible to join any scheme of national service brought in by the British Government?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, my attention has been called to a statement made by Mr. de Valera in which he referred to the position in the event of war of Irishmen resident in this country. As regards the second part, the eligibility or otherwise of particular classes of persons for inclusion in a scheme of national service could best he considered at the time of the introduction of any such scheme.

Mr. Pilkington: Are not such citizens eligible for employment in this country?

Mr. Fleming: Is it not a fact that these same Irishmen are eligible to join our national social service schemes?

MURDER CONVICTIONS (STATISTICS).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of persons convicted of murder between 1929 and the present day; the number executed; the number reprieved; the average rate of executions per annum; and the number of women executed during that period?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): During the period from 1st January, 1929,

to the present date, 188 persons were convicted of murder, but six of these convictions were quashed on appeal, and one was a person under 18 who was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure. Of the remaining 181 there were six certified insane after conviction and sent to Broadmoor Asylum and 92 were reprieved. Eighty-three, including three women, were executed. The average number of persons executed during this period was eight per annum.

SOLDIER'S DEATH, ALDERSHOT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the death of a soldier found dead in the cells at Aldershot on Sunday, 6th November?

Mr. Lloyd: I am informed that the deceased, who was a serving soldier, was arrested by the police on Friday, 4th November, on a charge of stealing a bicycle. While in custody he admitted other offences and during the greater part of the following day until 7·35 p.m. when he was placed in a cell for the night, he was engaged in sorting out certain property which had been found in his possession and indicating how some of it had been stolen. At about 8.10 he was found in the cell hanging by a noose made of the sleeves of his shirt which had been tied round the ventilation flap of the window of the cell. Throughout the day he had been helpful to the police and there was nothing in his conduct or demeanour to suggest that he was unduly depressed or in an abnormal state of mind. Nothing was found in his possession to indicate that he had been contemplating suicide. At the inquest which was held on 7th November, the verdict was that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging; the balance of his mind was disturbed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF NOTIONS.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the need of an active policy for the development of the Export Trade, and move a Resolution.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN CIVIL DEFENCE.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Medical Services in connection with Civil Defence, and move a Resolution.

WIRELESS PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Palmer: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Wireless Propaganda, and move a Resolution.

CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Condition of the People, and move a Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL,

"to continue certain expiring laws," presented by Captain Euan Wallace; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

MILK INDUSTRY BILL,

"to make provision for the better organisation of the Milk Industry and industries connected therewith, for making certain payments out of the Exchequer for the benefit of the Milk Industry, and for regulating the importation of milk and certain other products; to amend the law relating to the sale of milk and cream and the use of special designations in relation to milk; to amend and extend section twenty of the Agriculture Act, 1937; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. W. S. Morrison; supported by. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Colville, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Stanley, and Mr. Ramsbotham; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the continued high rate of road accidents in spite of existing measures, and therefore calls for more effective action for the public safety.
To begin with, there is a measure of satisfaction in the news in this morning's papers regarding the reduction in the numbers of killed and injured during the first 10 months of 1938 in comparison with the first 10 months of 1937. It is a reduction of about 40 in the number killed and about 2,000,000 in the number injured. But that satisfaction is somewhat qualified by the fact that in October, 1938, there were 22 more road deaths than in October, 1937, and a considerable increase in the number of those injured. I do not think anyone will criticise me for having brought forward for discussion this question of safety on the public roads. It is a matter of very great importance affecting the lives and health of a large number of people, and the magnitude of the problem can be seen when we realise that during the last 10 years 70,000 people have been killed and more than 2,000,000 injured on the roads. To take the figures over a rather longer period, since the War there have been 110,000 deaths and 3,250,000 people injured. These staggering figures are surely the concern of Parliament, and I am gratified that the Minister of Transport is here so that we may hear from him what the Ministry is doing in the matter.
Every 80 minutes of time day and night throughout the year there is one death; every two or three minutes of time day and night throughout the year there is one person injured. Probably one of the most tragic features is the extent to which the suffering and loss fall upon the very young and the very old. The most dangerous years in life so far as road accidents are concerned are the ages five and six, when young boys and girls have enough activity to take them into the danger zone and not enough understanding to look after their own safety. One in every seven of the people who have been killed over a number of years has been either five or six years of age. Nearly a quarter of the injured are boys and girls. On the rare occasions when we have an opportunity of listening in we hear so frequently that we can repeat the

words by heart a police message indicating that some old man or old woman has been knocked down and fatally injured in a road accident; and then comes the same formula time and time and time again, "Will anyone who witnessed the accident please communicate with Scotland Yard, Telephone number Whitehall 1212." Under the term "injured" there is included a very high proportion of people who are seriously injured, injured for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Macquisten: Mutilated.

Mr. Watkins: It all goes to show the very great magnitude of the problem. We live in an age of speed. The great thing for many people to-day is to travel as swiftly as possible. They have very little consideration for anything else. We live in a day of insensate and unconscionable speed, speed for speed's sake, not necessarily because there is any need to get quickly to a destination. Before the War we used to have discussions about "art for art's sake." To-day we travel for travel's sake, go for a run in a car and rush by some of the finest scenery in the country without looking at it at all. I do not propose to make any attack on the motorist as a motorist. I know very well that the majority of drivers are as concerned to reduce the number of accidents as is any other section of the population. I know that die majority of motorists do drive with a full sense of their responsibility and use the utmost care; but I also know, both from evidence in the newspapers and from the observations of my own eyes, that there is a considerable minority who take very little care indeed in driving about the public highways.
Motoring is the most dangerous form of travel to-day. I believe it is more dangerous than air travel, I know it is more dangerous than steamship travel and it is undoubtedly far more dangerous than railway travel. I thought that that was a universally accepted point of view until I was supplied, as I suppose other Members of this House have been supplied, with the Monthly Bulletin on road information published by the British Road Federation. In their front page article they endeavour to prove that road transport is far safer than rail transport. They use an argument that is specious and misleading and is based on a mathematical fallacy. Their method of arriving at their


conclusions is to compare the number of railway engines with the number of cars on the road and to divide each of them into the respective deaths caused by them, and so they come to a conclusion which is completely incorrect. Having worked out that sum they say:
Can we assume from this that the railway engine is 8.7 times more dangerous than the motor vehicle?
I can supply the answer very quickly: it is, "No." They then go on to a second mathematical calculation and work out the number of train-miles and the number of car-miles and relate the appropriate number of deaths caused by each, and again they get a wrong result. The only test for safety on the roads, as against the number on the railways, is not the number of engines as against the number of cars, is not the number of miles run in each case; it is the number of passenger-miles, the number of miles multiplied by the number of passengers conveyed. If that test is applied it will be seen that the railway is by far the safest method of transport in this country today. Every day from one of our London termini a train goes to Edinburgh, 400 miles, and another train comes in the reverse direction. Many trains do that daily and there are 400 or 500 passengers on each train. In the course of a week that one journey out and home will produce 2,250,000 passenger-miles, and week by week and month by month and year by year these trains run with no loss of life and no injury to passengers. Where can you find road transport that is at all comparable with safety of that kind? In my judgment the chief cause of the large figures of deaths and injuries—I might almost say the only cause, but that probably would be extravagant—is excessive speed. I know there are people who say that if you get the right surface on the road so that brakes act effectively, if you sheer off the blind corners and if you have a good system of lighting, the accident figures will decrease. Frankly, I do not believe it. The better the surface the higher the speed, the straighter the road the higher the speed, the better the lighting the higher the speed, and with the increase in speed there is less control over the rushing vehicle and much more likelihood of an accident.
The figures of the Ministry of Transport are entirely on my side in this contention. They show that 60.5 per cent. of the

accidents occur on straight roads or open road bends, only 4·2 per cent. occur on blind bends and 3·3 per cent. on steep hills and supposed danger spots. The accidents occur on the straight roads. Then 75·5 per cent. occur on roads more than 20 feet in breadth. In only 14 out of 6,942 accidents was the road excessively cambered; 81.6 per cent. of the accidents occurred in clear weather when motoring conditions were good and speed was, therefore, possible; only 3·3 per cent were in fog, only 4·09 per cent. were in snow or sleet. Then 57·7 occurred in daylight. Out of 1,254 accidents in built-up areas during darkness 904 were in areas where the lighting was good, and only 244 occurred where the lighting was reported to be poor. Moreover, 3,736 accidents out of 6,314 occurred in conditions of very light traffic. Out of 2,391 accidents in which a car and pedestrian came into collision 1,295 were in very light traffic, 979 were in moderate traffic, and only 95, a very small proportion, were in dense traffic. All these facts go to prove that where there is a facility for increased speed and speed is increased, however good the lighting, however good the surface the accidents occur, people are killed and the hospitals receive the products. I plead with the Minister for the institution of a 25 miles per hour speed limit in built-up areas. The majority of accidents, especially the accidents to pedestrians, occur in built-up areas where at present there is a 30 miles speed limit.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. Member think it will make any difference whether he is knocked down by a motor car or lorry travelling at 25 or 35 miles an hour? He will be dead in either case.

Mr. Watkins: Personally, if I had to be knocked down I would rather be knocked down by a vehicle travelling at 25 miles than by one travelling at 35 miles an hour.

Mr. Macquisten: You would not know anything about it.

Mr. Watkins: But there is less likelihood of being knocked down at all by a vehicle travelling at 25 miles an hour. The inquiries which the Ministry of Transport have carried on entirely support this contention of mine. At Worthing in three months before the 30 miles limit was imposed there were 13 accidents in 1934.


The next year, after the speed limit was imposed, there were four accidents during the corresponding period. In Liverpool the figures were reduced from 137 to 106, in Birmingham from 152 to 137, in Portsmouth from 55 to 38. There are numbers of other cases I could quote. Where the contrary has been found, where a road had been restricted and the restriction had been lifted, it was accompanied by an increase in the accidents. In Swindon in eight months there were 18 accidents when the road was restricted, and after the restriction was removed the number grew to 29. In Leeds the increase was from 15 to 39 and in Gillingham from 17 to 28. I know that there is a considerable opinion against the imposition of speed limits, but when the facts speak so clearly they point unerringly to the imposition of speed limits as being the most effective way that the Minister can use for reducing the huge number of accidents.

Mr. John Rathbone: Is the hon. Gentleman not presuming that in every case the motorist is to blame?

Mr. Watkins: Not at all. If the existence or the non-existence of a speed limit brings a difference in the number of accidents, I am entitled by the ordinary laws of reason to assume that a limit may be prudent.

Captain Strickland: Is the hon. Member not aware that the motorist has control in a speed limit, and if the hon. Member says that a reduction in the speed limit or an increase has a bearing on the responsibility, he is blaming the motorist for it.

Mr. Watkins: The hon. Member says that the motorist has control in the case of a speed limit. He may or may not, but he has not as effective control of his vehicle if it is travelling rapidly as he has if it is travelling slowly. The hon. Member probably knows as well as, or better than, I do that a vehicle travelling at 30 miles an hour takes 43 feet to be brought to a stop, if the brakes and the road surface are good, but if the vehicle is travelling at 25 miles an hour that stop can be imposed in 29 feet. That 14 feet difference may be the difference between life and death for somebody.
I submit to the Minister that what is urgently required is that the present

speed limits should be effectively imposed. They are disregarded everywhere to-day. In London and provincial towns vehicles are to be found travelling in the restricted areas at well over 30 miles an hour. You find public vehicles and lorries, all of which are supposed to be confined to that speed limit, going well beyond it. A question was asked in this House of the Home Secretary by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on 17th March this year, about a stretch of road with which we are all familiar, the Thames Embankment, including Millbank and Grosvenor Road. During 12 months, 300 persons were injured or killed on that stretch of road. During the same 12 months there was a very large number of police prosecutions of people who were exceeding the speed limit. A watch was kept upon the Birmingham and Coventry road within the parish of Meridan, arid it was reported that, in the course of one hour and 40 minutes, out of 116 vehicles that passed, 39 exceeded the speed limit by a substantial margin. I could give other examples, but I do not think I need do so. Anyone who moves about London can almost daily see vehicles travelling far beyond 30 miles per hour. The road with which I am very familiar is Rosslyn Road and Haverstock Hill, that straight road that leads down from Hampstead Heath to Chalk Farm. I should say that the majority of cars come down that hill outside the 30 miles limit.
What about the public service vehicles? I have here an official time-table of a road company that undertakes to take passengers from London to Edinburgh. The vehicles are not supposed to exceed 30 miles an hour, but you can board the vehicle at the Victoria coach station and find yourself in Edinburgh 15 hours 19 minutes later. Allowing for stops, the average speed of that motor vehicle is over 28 miles an hour. When one realises that in London and other cities the vehicle would be compelled to slow down, one must come to a conclusion that the only way that the time-table can be kept is by large parts of the journey being carried through in violation of the law. The Minister of Transport and the Home Secretary cannot feel comfortable about this state of affairs. I have come to the conclusion, as the Government have, that, in the public interest, a speed limit is essential, yet they know, as we all


know, that the limit is being violated every day all over the country.
I would ask the Minister whether he would consider the compulsory use by all vehicles of a mechanical arrangement, to be permanently affixed to vehicles which are subject always to the speed limit, for the purpose of preventing them from going at a speed above that which is legally allowed, and to private cars, which are sometimes under the speed limit and sometimes are not, in such a way that it can be adapted either to the requirements of the speed limit or not, as circumstances necessitate. The operation of the mechanical control would be indicated on the outside of the car, and the police and everyone else could see whether a vehicle was going beyond its proper legal speed. One of the interesting aspects of this matter is that when one becomes in any way interested in the question of reducing the number of accidents one is bombarded by all sorts of interesting people pushing forward what they want to say. In the public interest I do not want to help them.
There are two minor suggestions I want to put to the Minister. It is frequently difficult for a motorist to know whether he is inside or outside a restricted area. He passes the 30-mile control disc and gets into a town or a city. Later the character of the road begins to change as he nears the country on the other side, and there is nothing to show whether he is supposed to go at 30 miles an hour or is entitled to go beyond that speed. It might be advisable to have some intermediate indication for the benefit of the motorist who desires to keep within the law. The other suggestion concerns lighting-up time. I am not certain whether this matter comes within the province of the Minister of Transport or the Home Secretary, but, if the Home Secretary, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would pass the suggestion on to him. Lighting-up time is at present one hour after sunset in the summer and half an hour after sunset in the winter. I have no complaint to make about the half-hour in the winter. In the middle of the summer an hour may be satisfactory, but at the beginning and the end it means that people may travel on bicycles with no light at very great danger to themselves. It would be all right if our English climate were always nice, bright

and sunny, but on the dark and rainy days in the spring and autumn it is legal for cars and bicycles to be without a light during that hour, and the position is exceedingly dangerous. Something ought to be done in the direction of tapering up and down the time after sunset before the lighting-up regulations come into operation.
I return to a previous point and say that in my judgment the best way of dealing with this huge problem is to impose in built-up areas a speed-limit of 25 miles an hour. I sometimes think—I am not quite certain that I do not always think—that it is a pity that the internal combustion engine was ever invented, and that it would have been better if it could have been postponed for 100 or 200 years until mankind had acquired a little more commonsense and sense of humanity. We should not in that case be discussing this problem now, or be harassed by the far larger problem of being bombed from the air. But we cannot go back; the internal combustion engine is here and it will be used in increasing numbers on the road. We have to devise a way of saving the population from the danger which that position inevitably brings about. My suggestion is the lower speed-limit.
We can draw up a balance sheet on this question, a profit and loss account, with the debit on one side and the credit on the other. On the debit side are all those boys and girls and men and women who are being killed and maimed. A few years ago some of us tried to form a national organisation to stir up public opinion in regard to the matter. We were helped by the Bishop of Winchester, Lord Elton and a number of other people. I shall always remember that at one of the early meetings of that organisation a schoolmaster rose and spoke. He represented one of the educational organisations and he described how his wife and only daughter left the house one day and within half an hour were killed by a car. That man is left to lead his lonely life. There are parents who send their boys and girls to school in the morning, and the next time they see them the children's bodies are mangled and lifeless. Imagine the suffering and the agony, and the hasty recall of the husband from his work and of the abiding memory that remains.
That is on the debit side. What is on the credit side? What is the gain to the


nation of all this speed, just that some one can knock a few minutes or an hour off a journey? In any assessment of the value of the two sides of the balance sheet we ought to restrict the speed at which people can move along the public roads to the public danger. I expect the Minister will say that a committee has been set up in another place and that we must hear what it has to say and the recommendations it has to make. I am not quarrelling with that at all. He will probably say that the figures tend to improve a little. He is pleased, as we are all pleased any time we see improvement in the number of killed and maimed; but this problem is not to be satisfactorily dealt with by knocking 10 or 20 off the number of killed and 100 or 200 of the number of injured. Something far better, larger and more courageous than that is required. This is a pressing matter which affects the lives and homes of our people, and I urge it. I have no doubt that the House will carry this Motion, because it is almost non-contentious, and is certainly non-party. I hope that the result will be that the Minister and the Ministry will devise means whereby our roads may be made safe—or much safer than they are, at any rate—and these appalling figures be reduced very considerably.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Leach: I beg to second the Motion.
I think the House will agree that we have listened to a most able, moving and earnest appeal on this matter, and I wish to associate myself to the full in that general way with everything that my hon. Friend has said in his speech. I know, of course, that there is not a Member of the House who is not deeply and gravely concerned at the death toll on our British roads, and I know that we are all equally anxious to find a remedy for this disastrous state of things. To find that remedy, we must begin by analysing the causes, and, the moment we begin to do that, we reach very serious differences of opinion.
I want to begin with the courts of justice. They have much to do with the settling of responsibility for road accidents. In 1936, the usual 6,000 persons were killed, and the Home Office return for that year attributed 1,956 of those deaths to motor cars. In my judgment it was a gross under-statement, but I will

let that pass. In connection with those 1,956 deaths, only 128 motorists were indicted for manslaughter. What happened to the 128? Seventy-one were acquitted; 34 cases were dismissed or withdrawn, and only 23 convictions followed. What happened in the case of the 23 convictions? The longest sentence was three years' penal servitude, and four of them got that. Four others got 18 months or less; 12 got one year or less; one had his licence suspended for five years, and the remaining two were bound over. From these figures one reaches a very clear conclusion, namely, that, in the opinion of the courts, little or no blame attaches to motorists for 6,561 road deaths.
Then there is the Ministry of Transport, with its committees. They issue reports as to the alleged responsibility for deaths on the roads. They say that, in 1937, 2,484 deaths were due to the faults of pedestrians. All but 44 of those deaths were of the pedestrians themselves. These figures are taken from a precis of the evidence of the Pedestrians' Association given before the House of Lords Select Committee recently. The House will observe that 2,440 pedestrians were adjudged guilty in their action without hearing what they had to say. They were dead, and could not speak. Their case went by default, and the evidence of those who had killed them was accepted. In a Home Office return issued on 22nd March, 1937, 1,283 deaths were attributed to cyclists. Most of those deaths were of the cyclists themselves. They were absent, therefore, from the witness-box, and, as every lawyer knows, that is fatal to one's case.

Mr. Macquisten: The experience of lawyers is that on many occasions when a man comes in and gives evidence for himself that is fatal for his case.

Mr. Leach: I dare say there is some wit in that observation, but its relevance is very obscure to me. When an accusation of negligence, or jay-walking—which I think is the phrase commonly used—has to be brought, the safest person to accuse is a corpse. Take another example. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis issued a report on accidents to children in 1936. He said that, of 6,000 children involved in accidents, all but 500 were to blame for their death or injury. Can that be true? Are children of six, five, four, three or two years to be


properly held responsible for accidents to themselves on the highways? That is a new kind of aspect to be introduced into British law.
I want to repeat one or two of the statistics which my hon. Friend referred to in the Ministry of Transport return regarding the places where accidents occurred and the conditions under which those accidents happened. There were 60.5 per cent. on straight roads or open road bends; 75·5 per cent. on roads over 20 feet in width; and 81.6 per cent, occurred in clear weather. A good, thick, soupy London fog brings down the accident and death rate with a run; only 3·3 per cent. occurred in fog. The illuminating thing about those figures is this: The Ministry of Transport had something to say about them, and here is what the Ministry of Transport said in regard to fog:
This confirms the impression that conditions of low visibility bring home to users of the highway the necessity for caution and for reducing speed.
I quote that because it provides one of those very rare instances where you have the Ministry accidentally admitting the virtues of lessened speed. The Ministry of Transport have, I believe, committed themselves to the view that only 1.2 per cent. of road accidents are due to road conditions—road defects. I imagine that that is a very fair and correct estimate. But, on the other hand, you have the Oxford county surveyor, Mr. G. F. Bennett, who says that 76 per cent. of the accidents in his area in four years were caused by road defects. This statement, of course, has earned him the warm gratitude of motorists all over the country; they look upon him as a real friend in need. In this House, on 17th June last, the Minister of Transport informed us that in his opinion the greatest cause of accident is human error in the form of carelessness or lack of consideration. It is not a statement that gets us anywhere and there is no help in it, however true it may be.
When one comes to ask what the Minister is doing about this matter, one begins to realise how helpless he thinks he is. He and the Chancellor of the Exchequer between them have merged the Road Fund into the general reserve. He has issued reports; he has appointed accident officers; he has increased the mobile police; he has derestricted 1000 miles of roads, mostly against the wishes

of the local councils concerned; he has erected 2,700 sets of guard rails. His predecessor was the author of the fatuous "Belisha crossing." Untold millions have been spent in making our highways beautiful speed tracks. New main roads, new by-pass roads, and scores of thousands of spin splayed corners and widenings, have been initiated under the respective Ministers of Transport. Trees and hedges have been thlessly cut down, and cross-roads have been plastered with signals. Indeed, the work of prohibiting access to the roads altogether to pedestrians and cyclists is very well advanced. Their right to the highway is now in positive danger. The motorist is winning this fight; the pedestrian and the cyclist are losing it. The human attributes of error and carelessness referred to by the Minister will not be eradicated by any of the measures which I have mentioned, and of which the Minister himself seemed at the moment to be rather proud. The pedestrian who does not look where he is going will be killed; the motorist who does not look where he is going will kill him; and the court will pronounce judgment in favour of the motorist. I used to be an advocate of the broad highway. I am not so sure about that now.

Mr. Macquisten: It leads to destruction.

Mr. Leach: That is the best interruption that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. The narrow, winding roads are the most free from fatalities to-day. I read, for instance, that the little village of Hunstanton, in Norfolk, has not had a fatal accident for six years, because of its narrow, twisting streets; yet the main road through Hunstanton, so the people of that village say, carries the heaviest traffic in the country except the London-Brighton road. But it is narrow, like the rest of the streets of that village. With the Mover, I believe that speed is the chief menace. There are cars on our highways to-day that can do 100 miles per hour, and are guaranteed so to do by their makers. They ought to be prohibited. I do not deny that there are considerate motorists; far from it. One had me at his complete mercy the other day, and declined to slay me. But something mysterious happens to the kindly human being when he gets into the seat


of a modern high-powered luxury car. He becomes a different person. He regards both the pedestrian and the cyclist as nuisances. He says their carelessness causes his heart to jump into his mouth. No doubt that is true, but, if he were going at 15 miles per hour instead of 50, his heart would stay in its proper place. The exhilaration of high speed is well known to every motorist. To the young it is quite irresistible, and even to those who are not young it seems to be almost equally irresistible. I was enlightened as to this when I read the following little extract in the Press of 15th January:
Berlin, Friday.—Mr. Leslie Burgin, British Minister of Transport, who is on a highway inspection tour of Germany, said on arriving in Berlin to-day that the Hitler roads were so good that he was able to drive at 89 miles an hour in perfect safety, though the surface was icy.
The exhilaration microbe is there seen at its fell work. The Minister of Transport knows that there is no such thing on the roads as perfect safety, either in Britain or in Germany; but his blood was up. He had a mild, temporary delirium which was extraordinarily pleasant. But I hope he has since reached the decision that at that moment he had actually crossed the sanity frontier.
The Ministry of Transport inform us that in 1937, for every car or lorry driver killed there perished 20 other people, 10 of whom were pedestrians, 4·5 cyclists, 3·7 motor cyclists, and the rest passengers, drivers of horse vehicles, riders of horses, conductors, attendants, etc. The immunity of the motorist is startling. He provides less than 5 per cent. of the fatalities. I think the onus of responsibility resting upon him is far more terrible than he has yet begun to realise. The size of the casualty lists prove that. Those chief constables who single out cyclists and pedestrians as the chief menace of the roads try one's patience. Among them I note the chief constables of Manchester, Oldham, Bedfordshire and Carnarvonshire. They are unfair, and pro-motorist. A few months ago I suggested in this House certain things which I felt would tend to reduce drastically the death roll which is on our consciences to-day. They were not well received. I am not proposing to repeat them now, but I stand by every one of them; and I am still hoping that the Minister himself is giving them his consideration.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. John Rathbone: I do not know whether either of the hon. Gentlemen opposite happens to be a motorist of long experience. I am a motorist, with a certain amount of experience, and, being a married man, I am also a pedestrian at times. It is my conviction that one cannot put the blame entirely on either the pedestrian or the motorist. There are bad motorists, of course; and there are jay-walkers, too. I have had the remarkable experience on two occasions, when driving a car in traffic, of having jay-walkers walk into me. I saw on one occasion that that was likely to happen, and I thought it would do no harm if it did; so I stopped the car, and sure enough it happened. The person walked into the car; and was furious with me.
I do not believe the trouble on the roads arises purely from speed. It arises much more from diversity of speed—both from unevenness in the speed of particular vehicles, and differences in the speeds of different kinds of traffic. The greatest differences of speed arise, of course, when one compares the speed of the motor car with that of the pedestrian. The railways have solved this problem. Time was, no doubt, when people were allowed to walk across the railway lines. Now they are forbidden to do so, but one hears no hue and cry about people not being allowed to walk on the railway lines. I doubt very much the exclusive right of pedestrians to walk about the roads irrespective of what other people are doing. All classes of road users should have definite obligations not to get in the way of others—to enjoy the rights they have in such a way as not to restrict the rights of others. It is my belief that about as much control of motorists has already been put into force as can be put into force. I do not believe that the difference of five miles an hour between the present limit of 30 miles an hour and the 25 miles an hour which has been suggested would make the slightest difference.
What I think is needed is segregation of traffic. That goes as much for segregation between pedestrians and motorists as for the segregation which goes on these days in other ways. There is no doubt that the greatest number of accidents occur in built-up areas, where the population is most thick. Use has been made recently of barriers on pavements, to prevent


pedestrians stepping off suddenly. I believe that one of the outstanding examples of the successful use of those barriers is at Hounslow. The pedestrian is very often himself in just as much hurry, for as little cause, as the motorist. He cuts corners, he does not wait for a pedestrian crossing. The number of pedestrians outside this very building who go to the trouble of waiting for an opportunity of crossing to the centre of Parliament Square, knowing that they have to cross another road equally full of traffic within another 100 yards in order to get back to Whitehall, is ludicrous. If only those people realised how much time they would save in the end, from how much trouble they would save themselves, and from how much annoyance they would save other people by going back to the crossing. I believe they would do so.
There is this question of the flow of traffic. How much longer is the Minister of Transport going to allow a car in, say, Bond Street, a very busy shopping thoroughfare, calmly to draw across the street to set somebody down and then to draw back across the lines of traffic proceeding both ways, in order to get on its proper side? In many countries that has been stopped long ago. And how long are cars to be allowed to turn round in a street when they know well that they cannot turn in one sweep? So many regulations are issued against motorists that I believe they would not mind regulations dealing with these two matters being added. It is so easy to go around the block, and to pull up beside a pedestrian crossing.

Mr. Leach: Has the hon. Member any idea what effect those two reforms would have on the casualty rate?

Mr. Rathbone: Yes; and I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, would have called me to order if he had not seen the connection. The car that is crossing four lines of traffic—two going each way usually—in order to set down a passenger is slowing up the traffic suddenly. The traffic may even come to a standstill, and then some pedestrian probably says, "Here is my opportunity to dodge between this lorry and that private car," and he steps off; the traffic then starts again, and he gets hit. If the traffic flow were even, people would not try stepping off in that way. A regulation to deal with this is one of the things that

I think would help. It has been very efficient in some of the countries where it has been put into force. I suggest that some kind of report might be made by means of which reliable figures could be put before hon. Members of this House. The hon. Member opposite had some interesting figures, which were difficult to take in while given by word of mouth. The House would be very interested to know what plans the Minister has for the cutting down of this toll, more particularly in the streets of big cities. I am sure that whatever plans he has will receive unanimous support.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: The last speaker was, I think, right when he said that neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Motion was a practical motor driver. It is a pity, because we might have had a more useful and enlightened contribution to the Debate if either of them had had practical experience.

Mr. Watkins: Would the hon. and learned Member think my qualification for indulging in the Debate any less because I have been knocked over and flung through the air by a motor car?

Mr. Macquisten: I do not think the hon. Member's views on that would give any enlightenment to the motorist. If I had my way he and the motorist would not have been in the same road. I concur with what the hon. Member has said about the railways. Our railways for nigh 100 years have had a wonderful record in regard to the lives of passengers. There used to be a certain number of employés who lost their lives, but even that has greatly diminished, if not altogether ceased. Historically, what have we to thank for that? It is not altogether the excessive care of the railways. It so happened that when the railways started people did not realise the enormous danger they were, but a Cabinet Minister, Mr. Huskisson, was run over and killed, near Liverpool, I think. The sacrifice of that man saved the lives of thousands of people. There is no Cabinet Minister to-day, least of all the Minister of Transport, whom I would like to see sacrificed in that way; but the effect in that case was tremendous.
The aristocratic Government of that day, with a far greater consideration for human life than is possessed by our modern Parliaments, elected by universal


suffrage, said: "We cannot allow our people's lives to be endangered by this dreadful instrument of death." So they said to the railways, "You must make roads for yourselves and fence them in carefully, and allow nobody to trespass on them." But, after all, the railway was not nearly so dangerous, even if left open, as an ordinary road, because all you had to do to prevent yourself being killed or run over was to keep off the lines. You knew where the railway engine was going, but you do not know with any certainty where the lorry or motor-car is going. They will even mount the pavement. I never walk on the outside of the pavement for that very reason. As I go along I always keep a watchful eye to see whether something is going to mount the pavement. I suppose that I have had more experience of road traffic than any Member of this House. It is 54 years ago since I used to perform acrobatic feats on an old penny-farthing bicycle. There was nothing that I could not do on the bicycle. I used to ride up and down the pier watching and crossing the gaps in the planks, and then ride on top of the wall with a big drop down into the sea.
Then there came the safety bicycle, and as far back as 1900 I was riding a motor bicycle, a very dangerous form of locomotion. I have also driven tens of thousands of miles in a motor car, and I have never once had even the vestige of an accident. The reason for this was that I used to drive with my conscience in front of me, realising that there might always be something that might run out, even a rabbit, that I did not want to destroy. I was sometimes abused by succeeding motorists for going too slowly, though I often exceeded the legal limit when I had an open stretch of road and could see the country round about.
It is not the motorists nor the pedestrians nor the cyclists who are at fault, but the House of Commons who, when the motor came upon the scene allowed it to go on to the road among cattle and sheep, and human beings, children, and horse-drawn vehicles, mixing them all together. No matter what speed regulations you make such mixing of traffic will not work. If you have a speed regulation of 25 miles an hour, who is to see that it is kept? We are told that the

speed limit of 30 miles an hour is never kept. I have never kept it myself. I am the best judge of what is safe and what is not safe, and I have put that to the test successfully over a long period of years. If you are to enforce a speed limit you need to have a policeman sitting beside the driver in every car.
You can see the danger of non-enclosure in regard to the railways. Wherever there is a level crossing in any part where the railways run, you get accidents, though a level crossing can be perfectly safe. There are always accidents happening, and unfortunately the foot passenger is often killed. I have had the same experience as my hon. Friend on the left. I remember going down the lane from my house on one occasion. I saw a man driving a milk barrow, with tall tins on it. He was busy talking, and I saw that if I accelerated I might get past, yet might scrape him. I just stopped, and he ran into me. I said, "How dare you drive furiously with that milk barrow?" There was some joyous laughter by the onlookers. But when all is said, why should the man who is only careless be killed? The penalty is far too great.
One thing that could be done when the railways were put down originally was that, to prevent monopoly, they were to be toll roads and you could provide your own horse and your own engine. The whole idea of government in those days was to prevent monopoly, but modern Governments do all they can to promote monopoly and to get big combines because they can get bigger sums in taxation. But they are enslaving the people, because monopoly always leads to enslavement. The relies of the anti-monopoly idea remained till up to 1885. When you received your bill from the railway company, you could ask for it to be divided into three—a toll charge, a haulage charge, and a general charge. The purpose of that was to prevent monopoly. But the mechanical nature of the single railway created a monopoly and very soon, when it was found that they had a monopoly, they imposed all those conditions of common carriers and the like. Until the advent of the explosive engine the railways did their work very well, too well. They hauled all the people from the villages into the big towns, and they created all these huge congestions of population, which bring all


the social evils of overcrowding, which put poor unfortunate mothers in high tenements, storeys up, where they can give the little children nothing else to play upon than the street untended. That has led to a very great evil, and we saw the other day, when evacuation was suggested, how impossible it would be to make a successful job of it because of the congestion of the population.
It was very unfortunate that we were the pioneers of railways, because in the olden days the people dwelt in the country with little towns in the centre, and it would infinitely help if we could get back to something of that kind. If we could get back to something of that kind we might cut down the road accidents, those monstrous figures of 70,000 people killed. To-day if any friend, wife or child, should be late returning home, what is the first thought that occurs to you? It is, have they been run over? Nobody is free of that fear. I got into the habit early of telephoning home. If I had said I would be home at a certain time I always made a point a little before that time to go to the telephone and advise them of my delay, because I knew that my household would suffer anxiety in case I should meet with an accident. That fear simply haunts everybody. The advice that I gave to those of my household who go to work is never to indulge in brown studies, but to keep a watch all the time, knowing that every day there is some motorist who will kill you if he possibly can, and you must be ready to dodge him.
That is the position into which the people of this country are put. Who is responsible for it? Parliament is responsible. We have no right whatever to allow these dreadful instruments on the road to kill far more people than are killed in comparatively major wars, and to mutilate thousands upon thousands of them. It is a shocking reflection upon us. Attempts have been made by the motor industry, which, mark you, has far more capital and employés than all the railways put together, to get the conditions modified. They wanted to make special motor roads. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu wanted to make one down to Brighton, but was it permitted? No, the influence of the railway company was too great, and the influence of the railway companies in this House and the other House is tremendously great. That is

why I say that this House is rotten with railway directors; so it is, and so is the other House. The influence is colossal, and what is the result? The road transport industry has been hamstrung by regulations of a most intricate description, and road commissioners are scattered all over the country to refuse licences to this and to that, and to hamstring and put down road transport.
The true remedy is to make proper motor roads, with one-way traffic, dedicated solely to commercial and other motor traffic. I would compensate the railways and get rid of them because they are absolutely unnecessary. I would make the railway tracks, because they are comparatively straight, into speedways for motors. I would take over the London and North Eastern track to come south from Scotland, and the London Midland and Scottish track to go to the North. Motor transport could go with perfect safety at 100 miles an hour, because they would be comparatively straight routes. One speaker has said that there is no such thing as perfect safety. I hold that there is no such thing as perfect safety anywhere. There is no such thing as perfect safety in bed. Far more people die there than anywhere else. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a nice place in which to die."] We should lay down motor roads now for motors only. It should have been done at the beginning, and they should be dedicated to nothing else but motors. Let the motor lorry which carries the goods take out its ticket at the gateway and pay its toll, and then give up its ticket at the point nearest its destination. The main difference between road and rail is that of terminal charges. The labour cost is colossal. I remember a piano manufacturer in this House telling me that if he used to send pianos by railway he was lucky to get them in 72 hours. He had to enclose them in cases. The railway lorry came along and he put them into the lorry, and they had to be unloaded at the station, and at the other end of the journey, the same thing occurred. "Now," he said "our road haulier comes along and they are hoisted into the lorry and delivered a few hours afterwards." He said that it saved more than a pound a piano, and that when one sent as many as 20 pianos a week it amounted to a considerable sum—more


than he drew out of his business, and there was never a scratch on his pianos and he avoided the cost of the cases.

Mr. Broad: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. and learned Member getting very much off the track? He has been wandering all over the road.

Mr. Macquisten: I am dealing with railway traffic.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. and learned Member is, in my opinion, not yet out of order.

Mr. Macquisten: What I have said is perfectly true. I said that the House was rotten with railway directors, but there seem to be some people in this House who object very much to the defence of road traffic. I say the right thing to do is to promote its safety and develop it. It could be done splendidly. Our railways are far better than the French railways, but they are an absolutely obsolete system. Why should not people have the right to employ the method of transport they desire. The Minister of Transport is not free from guilt in that respect, not only the present Minister but previous Ministers. It is as if the public existed for the purpose of providing transport for the railways. The objection which is taken to motor traffic seems to be that it takes transport from them. They should have facilitated road transport and helped it, and taken up such a scheme as I laid down in the columns of the "Saturday Review" some 10 years ago from which all the new ideas of transport experts are now quarried.
If we had done that it would have saved the lives of tens of thousands of people. The hands of the House of Commons and the railway companies are dripping with the blood of the people whose lives have been sacrificed, because safe roads have not been provided. They are responsible for these people who have been massacred. It is far worse than bombing in a long war, and because it happens here and there, and in individual cases, it does not shock the people in the way that they are shocked if a railway accident occurs and a large number of people are killed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because we do not get many."] We do not get many because the railways are perfectly conducted. I pay my meed of praise to the railway companies for the

way they manage their business, but I am sorry that they have not realised that they are obsolete. I would take them over and compensate them in order to get real effective road transport.
The Minister of Transport is not free from blame for certain things he does. I have had an interesting experience in the Isle of Mull where there existed a 14 feet road between Salen and Tobermory. Do hon. Members know what has been done? The county council are at his instigation cutting down that road from 14 feet to 9 feet, and at passing places where you have to pull up here and there it is causing an enormous hindrance to the local population, and it has already caused some minor accidents. It is an outrage, and the same thing is being done all through the Highlands. The same thing has happened in Kintyre, where a road has been reduced from 18 feet to 16 feet wide. That is very dangerous for chars-a-banc which pass in the night.
Why all these restrictions? Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to be known as the Minister for obstructing transport? So far as the Highlands of Scotland are concerned, that is what he is doing. When General Wade made the roads in the Highlands, there were objections. We did not want roads then. We thought that we should be corrupted by the bad manners of the Lowland Scots. If we are to have roads, they should be decent roads. When General Wade made these very fine roads, by military men, there used to be a saying, "If you had seen this road before it was made, you would get up and say 'God bless General Wade.'" If the Minister of Transport persists in reducing the Salen-Tobermory road from 14 feet to 9 feet wide, the couplet about him will be: "If the people of Mull see this road after it is made, they will get up and say, 'To the Devil with the minister of Transport,'" because he has spoilt a good road, which was suitable for the people and given them a bridle track.
We want roads suitable for all classes of traffic. We want to make our country roads suitable for all traffic. We are making them as if they were intended entirely for motorists. They are too hard and slippery for pedestrians, cattle and sheep. Why not adopt the South African plan, with road strips 2 feet 9 inches apart, made of bitumen or concrete, and the rest of the road a normal macadam


road? We should then get 10 miles of road made for the cost of one at the present time. Where there is a considerable amount of traffic there could be two sets of strips. Under this system when the motorists meet, each takes a strip, and they swing out and swing in when they have passed. I ought to have explained when I was speaking about roads to be dedicated to motorists, that when they come out of the motor roads into the ordinary highways, nearest their destination, I should not be content with imposing a 25 miles speed-limit but I should insist that the speed-limit should be 10 miles an hour. That would not be unreasonable, and it would not take them any length of time to get to their destination and they would abate terminal charges.
Many traders prefer road transport rather than the railways. For instance the people of Aberdeen want to send their fish by lorries because the transport is quicker than by rail. It is their fish, and why should they not be able to do that? The railway companies, however, say, "The fish may smell, but we insist on getting the carrying of it," and in that they have succeeded. Motors are well suited for long-distance traffic. Take the example of the cotton growers in South America, where they carry their cotton from the plantations to the ships by motors, a distance of 200 or 300 miles.
If we had splendid roads devoted solely to motor transport many of our social problems would be solved. There would not be the present congestion in the towns, and industries would be scattered over the countryside. There should also be tracks for cyclists. I am very fond of cycling, but I have not the nerve to cycle when motorists are whizzing past me. Cycling is good for health and I would gladly indulge in it if there were safety tracks. The motorist, unfortunately, has made the roads his monopoly. We cannot make people safe by underground crossings or by bridges, which are seldom if ever used. Has any hon. Member ever seen anyone going over the bridges on the Kingston by-pass? There ought to be roads for motorists, and other transport should go on the ordinary highway. That is a fundamental necessity.
Restriction is no good; it is like prohibition in America, where people drank

harder than ever. It is utterly wrong and futile and leads nowhere and will not diminish accidents. The proper way is to do what Parliament did in the thirties. We ought to say to the motorists: "You must have your own roads, and when you come on to the ordinary highway and you mix with the other transport you must drop your speed." In the City of London, where the streets are narrow, the traffic practically crawls and there are very few accidents. We do not want the speed on the open roads to be restricted but we want to develop road transport. We are not doing that under the present system, but rather hindering it. That has a most serious effect on the cost of living.
If we had proper roads, not only for safety but as a result we were able to get our factories out into the countryside and the workmen living round them, with gardens to their houses, we should be able to disperse the populations of the congested areas. That would lead not only to safety on the roads but safety from the sky. It is notable that there are considerably fewer motor freight vehicles in existence to-day for the purposes of evacuation than last year. That is because of colossal taxation and the restrictions in the number of licences for hauliers. The whole system is wrong. We have our Minister of Transport and we also had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who started the raiding of the Road Fund many years ago. From £50,000,000, £70,000,000 to £80,000,000 a year have been taken out of the Fund which ought to have been used for providing proper roads. Road transport has been persecuted by successive Governments. That is shown in the matter of fuel. For instance, if the railways had to pay £1 a ton tax on every ton of coal, there would be a great outcry. Yet road transport has to pay that on its fuel. It is a shocking and unjust thing.
There must be some way out of this cul-de-sac. We must secure both safety and speed of transport. We want to restore the people to the country areas, get them back to the land, and make most of the benefits of this new instrument of civilisation, but we are refused the opportunity because a certain amount of money is invested in railways, although it is very much less than the amount invested in motor transport. That condition of things is absolutely contrary to the public


interest. I wish railways shareholders all the luck they can get, but they will not get it by hamstringing road transport.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is getting rather far away from road accidents.

Mr. Macquisten: I bow to your Ruling. If the proposals which I have suggested were adopted, there would be a great diminution of casualties on the roads and we should have motor transport in this country put into the almost ideal state of the railways with regard to accidents. There woud be practically no accidents, and there should be none, if we had proper roads dedicated to road transport.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), like most lawyers I have had to do with, runs wide from his brief. He says that this House and the other place are riddled or rotten with railway interests. As far as my experience goes, this House is riddled and rotten with lawyers. I have never known a Bill to come before this House without almost every lawyer seeking to mould the Bill so as to leave room for plenty of controversy, which means to him his living. If the Bill as it came originally from the draftsman had been left to the lay mind to be brought to bear upon it, we should have had much better legislation than we have at present.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. Member not know the lawyers' toast: "Here's to the man who makes his own will."

Mr. Smith: I do not know anything about the lawyers' toast, but I know what I would do with most of them, and that would be to roast them, and it would not be in this place. The Motion deals with motor accidents on the roads. The hon. and learned Member has roamed all over the railways, and spoken of aeroplanes and pianos on lorries, but said very little on the subject of the Motion, There can be no doubt that the number of accidents on the roads, fatal and non-fatal, has reached alarming proportions. I remember being asked by the Minister of Transport in a Conservative Government on one occasion to meet the coroners of London and to go into the question of road accidents. That was about 12 years ago and we went into the subject. Still, the accidents continue.

Mr. Macquisten: There were no lawyers on that Committee.

Mr. Smith: We did not have them there but we get them as Ministers. In 1937, there were 260,566 people killed or injured on the roads, and I would draw the attention of the Minister to what I believe to be the main causes of those accidents. Speeches such as that we have listened to engender antagonism between the pedestrian and motor driver. My experience is that the motor driver as a pedestrian does what the ordinary pedestrian does to the motor driver. Motor owners are responsible for the largest number of accidents. If the Minister will look at his own figures he will see that where the drivers were held responsible not less than 47½ per cent. of the accidents were due to private motor cars, while the figure for motor cycles was 27.4 per cent. Approximately 75 per cent. of the accidents that are attributable, so far as his own figures go, to the driver, are covered by those two sections.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. Member give us the number of motorists and the number of motor cyclists?

Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Member has the same means of getting the figures as I have. They are in the Library. I do not propose to worry the House with them, except to deal with one or two sections of them. There are 507,256 commercial vehicles on the roads, and the drivers of those vehicles are responsible for only 15.1 of fatal accidents and 18.3 of the non-fatal accidents, or a total of 16.2 per cent. Where the vehicles or the equipment were held to be blameworthy, we find that 22.9 per cent. were private cars, 17.4 per cent. were motor cycles and 23.5 per cent. ordinary pedal cycles, making 83.8 per cent. attributable to these three sections. When we come to the number of vehicles involved we find that 33.2 per cent. are private cars, 11.3 per cent. light motor vans, 29.6 per cent. pedal cycles, and 13.6 per cent. motor cycles, a total of 88.8 per cent. That reveals where the trouble is.
I have driven for 40 years—touch wood—and I have never vet touched a pedestrian or had an accident on the road except a damaged wheel, and I have driven millions of miles. If every driver would accept as his motto, "The


onus is on me," there would be many fewer accidents on the roads. One of the real troubles is the non-enforcement of the law. I come to this House daily through Millbank and I follow a vehicle which is supposed to go 20 miles an hour. If the law was enforced that 20 mile an hour vehicle would not be in front of a vehicle going at 30 miles an hour. There is no real enforcement of the law and, therefore, there is no respect for the law. That can be taken as a cardinal principle. I say quite frankly that 30 miles an hour is quite fast enough in a built-up area. I was one of those who started driving when one had to have a red flag carried in front of the vehicle, and later there was a 20-mile limit. The whole thing was farcical. To-day 30 miles an hour is fast enough in a built-up area. I will confess that if I set out to go from here to Yorkshire I reckon to complete 100 miles in three hours, that is about 33⅓ miles an hour, which I think is safe driving. I think it is reflected as being safe in the record I have been able to give to the House.

Captain Strickland: If the hon. Member averaged 33⅓ miles an hour from London to York he would have to do 40 or 50 miles an hour on some of the stretches.

Mr. Smith: I guessed that an hon. Member would put that point; but when I tell him that my speedometer never goes beyond 40, except when passing another vehicle, I hope he will accept my statement.

Captain Strickland: I suggest that the hon. Member should get a new speedometer.

Mr. Smith: I say that while the law is there it should be enforced. Take the schedules which advertise that you can leave Victoria and reach Scotland with an average speed of 28 miles per hour. That in itself must mean an excessive speed through areas which are not built up. The Minister should make it obligatory on these people to submit their schedules to some authority. They are submitted, I know, to the trade unions and to Scotland Yard, and there is very little excessive speed in London, but I am talking of the long-distance coach, and there is no doubt that these vehicles go at excessive speed; they pass me on the road day after day. If the law was

enforced these schedules would be considerably lengthened as to time and I believe accidents would also be considerably reduced. I am a critic of the Belisha beacons and also of the guard rails. Today the guard rails are resting places for the weary on many corners, and if they are not being used by the weary they are being used as parallel bars by children, which is equally dangerous. I suggest that the Minister should use his influence in the Cabinet to see that all school playgrounds during the summer are kept open and that in winter the schools themselves are kept open so that the children might be kept off the roads.
I know that the question of cost will be mentioned. I do not know the cost of producing a citizen; it may be £1,000 or £2,000, at least, but if the schools and playgrounds were kept open, with an attendant or a teacher in charge, it would be good for the children, it would be a measure of safety and the cost would be very little for the Government. I want to suggest also that the half-hour for winter lighting up should be made uniform throughout the whole year. There is no doubt that many accidents take place between lights in the countryside in the summer time. It is very troublesome to the eyes and one must assume that it is liable to bring accidents in its train. If we had a system of a uniform half-hour for lighting up it would be helpful. Another point is that in any municipal contracts for new roads there should be a two-colour scheme on the road. It would be a great help on a misty night. On a two-carriage roadway the near side could be of one colour and the off side of another, and you would know when you were on the near side of the road. If it is a three-way traffic road you can have a white line in the centre with two blacks on either side, which again would be very helpful in the elimination of accidents.
Why cannot we have a uniform system of lighting? A committee has been set up to deal with this matter, but I think that the sodium discharge lamp is the best type we have found. It gives a shadowless road; people cannot spring into the road without the motorist having a chance of seeing them. If a system of uniform lighting was adopted it would be a great help to motorists. There is another aspect to which I think the Minister should give his serious consideration. It applies to what I call the learner. In


issuing licences to motorist salesmen the Minister knows that in one case, when the salesman is trying to sell his car, he is not allowed to carry anyone other than the potential purchaser, but when a licence is granted to a learner you will see five or six people being driven at speed by a learner on a Saturday at Sunday, especially in the summer.
Where a learner is issued with a provisional licence it should be made a condition that no other person shall be in the vehicle but the person instructing him. In this way a fruitful cause of accidents will be obviated. They get their licence for three months and are a danger on the roads when learning their business. They go up, and fail; and get a licence for another three months. And so they go on quarter after quarter, always a danger on the roads and never troubling whether they ever pass the test or not. They get what they want; which is the use of a dangerous vehicle on the roads without being competent to handle it. I think the Minister should look into this matter. They are this sort of people: Two men were going home and one thought that the other had been drinking when in fact they had both been drinking. He said, "Steady old man, you are driving dangerously," and the other said, "I am not driving, you are driving." Those are the sort of people we get in cars occasionally. It is like the gentleman who had one arm round his lady's waist and was skidding very badly. She said, "Use the other Ebby," and he said, "I am sorry I can't. I want it for driving." That sort of thing goes on.
I hope the Minister will look into the various suggestions I have made. Without going into other aspects of the question I think there is on the roads a good deal of ignorance and a good deal of risk-taking. There is also a good deal of risk-taking by pedestrians. Why is not the pedestrian told that the sanctuary of a crossing is in fact a continuation of the footpath? If motorists also knew this there would be much more respect for these crossings. If it was laid down in the law that these crossings are in fact extensions of the footpath, the pedestrian would feel safer and the motorist would know that he was crossing a footpath. The Minister will know that I am not criticising him as a Minister. All I am

doing is to ask him to do what he can to avoid accidents, and if he will adopt some of my suggestions I think he will do much to eliminate what I believe is the worst aspect of the problem to-day, and that is the complete antagonism which exists between pedestrians and motorists. Each would believe that both have a right on the road and both would want to be fair, and if the law was enforced there would be increased respect for the law.

5.44 p.m.

Sir Louis Smith: The House, I am sure, will have enjoyed the speech just made by a practical motorist, especially as we have already heard the point of view of another hon. Member who admitted that he is a pedestrian, and, unfortunately, a pedestrian who has met with a nasty accident. The point of view put by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) is that he looks on 33⅓ miles an hour average from London to York as a very safe speed. I welcome the introduction of this subject for two reasons. One is that it gives us an opportunity of emphasising the need for safety in the country and the risk of danger on the roads, and, secondly, that it gives an opportunity to hon. Members in all parts of the House to make non-party suggestions to the Minister as to what in their opinion would help to decrease the heavy toll on the roads. Perhaps it will also give the Minister a little assistance when he goes to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more money than he has thought of spending during the next year or two.
I do not think we ought to criticise the Minister of Transport unduly, considering that, as the Mover of the Motion said in his thoughtful speech, during the 10 months of this year the number of fatalities decreased by 10 and the number of injured by 2,000. Those figures may appear small, but when one considers the enormous growth of motor traffic, the very fact that there is no increase shows that what has been done by the Minister of Transport is bearing fruit. What have we done to diminish accidents during recent years? We have been spending a great deal of money on widening roads, designing new roads and taking traffic round towns in order to avoid accidents in those congested areas. We have put down, over many thousands of miles, a white line in the centre of the road. We


have arranged very many traffic light signals, and we have spent a good deal of money on pedestrian crossings and footway railings. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Rotherhithe concerning pedestrian crossings and railings. I consider that they have saved life. I think the Belisha beacons have done useful service, and I am certain that, particularly in guarding children from the road, the footway railings have been valuable. We have developed street lighting, and we have replaced a great many trams by trolley buses, which is a step in the right direction. I consider that a very great deal more needs to be done in street lighting, and no doubt during the next year or two the Minister will give this his attention.
With regard to the vehicle, too, there is little doubt that modern motor cars are much safer vehicles than the ones which we drove, say, 15 years ago. To-day, they have four-wheel brakes, which mean a great deal when meeting a possible accident. They have better tyres than formerly, and there is still room for ingenuity in that direction by the motorcar makers. Certainly, we have found that the white patch carried by the cyclist has helped us to avoid running into him, but still I emphasise—and I think it is one of the matters which the Minister of Transport should take up at once—the importance of the cyclist carrying a rear lamp. I do not believe that there is, in this white patch or in a mudguard painted white, enough evidence of the cyclist being there at night, especially when we pass another oncoming car. I drive a good deal at night, and I am always in great fear lest there should be cyclists on the left side of the road. If cyclists carried rear lamps, there would certainly be less danger of running into them. I cannot see why the addition of this lamp should not be made compulsory, for it would add greatly to the safety of the cyclist, and the cost would not be very much. I would even go as far as to say that on unlighted thoroughfares pedestrians should be compelled to carry either a torch or a lamp. In the country district where I live, it is very difficult at night, if there is a road joining a main road, to see a pedestrian if he is hurrying or running on to the road when one is passing the junction. I think that at night pedestrians should carry a torch or a lamp.

Mr. Buchanan: Would they be supplied free of charge?

Sir L. Smith: I think it would be in the interests of the pedestrians, and the cost would be a small item. Indeed, I think that most pedestrians at the present time do carry either torches or lamps in the country districts. What can we do further to increase the safety of our roads? We can, without doubt, teach children a great deal in the schools, and we can teach adults by giving them information on the films and over the wireless. I believe that the introduction of the test for driving has improved the standard of driving, although I am not sure that the test should not be a little more thorough. I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether he will take up this matter with his Department and find out by investigation whether they are perfectly satisfied that the present test goes far enough, or whether accidents might not be avoided by taking a little more care in that direction. I noticed on the Order Paper to-day a question asking whether the Minister would
consider introducing amending legislation that will enable such persons to procure a special motor licence for use at week-ends.
I cannot understand anybody making such a suggestion, because in my opinion a short-licensed car is a dangerous car. The man who is not driving regularly, but who goes on to the road for a short time in good weather, when the roads are much more crowded, is a more dangerous driver than the average driver who drives all the year round. The main way in which I believe the accidents on our roads could be avoided and reduced in number would be by segregating the cyclists and the pedestrians from the fast-running traffic. We know that in other countries they have met this difficulty by building motorways. In Germany, Italy, Holland and the United States of America they have already built roads on which no pedestrian or cyclist is allowed. This is a very thickly populated country. The number of vehicles on the road has been nearly doubled in ten years, and the density of vehicles in certain districts has in many cases been found to be three times as great. Therefore, it is all the more reasonable for Britain to adopt this new system of motorways.
No cyclist should be allowed on a road where cars are travelling at 60 or 70 miles an hour, and certainly no pedestrian and


no cattle or horses should be allowed on such a road. I strongly dissent from the view of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), who said that our railways are obsolete. I consider that in this country we have room for both railways and good motor roads. What I look to the Minister of Transport to do is to hold the balance of traffic between the road and the rail. Personally, I would far sooner travel by rail for a long journey, but for short journeys and for convenience in getting across country, no doubt a car is better.
We have received recently a very able and carefully-thought-out report from the county surveyors of this country. They have considered very carefully the system of motorways and they have advised the Minister of Transport that it would be wise, and certainly in the interests of the country as a whole, to build seven new motorways in various parts of the country. I know that a thousand miles of these motorways would be a very expensive proposition, but I appeal to the Minister of Transport carefully to consider this plan as a whole, and, although it may not be found possible to proceed with the whole of the scheme within the next year or two, to have it, or an amended scheme, adopted, after consideration in the Ministry, and then to decide to build a certain section of that number of main motorways in order to find out the reaction in the country and the result of the expenditure. I believe that the country would quickly respond to this new idea of highways for motors alone, the pedestrians and cyclists being taken care of on other roads that still exist in the same neighbourhood, and we should build up, as in other countries, a very much safer highway and a very much quicker means of getting from one part of the country to another.
Therefore, there are two things on which I make an appeal to the Minister of Transport. The first is that he should instruct his engineers at the Ministry very carefully to consider this big scheme which has been prepared by the county surveyors of the country, that he should select a route from that scheme which, in his judgment would be the most suitable one to commence with, and that he should put that matter to the Cabinet for consideration. I know that at the present time we may be short of money to spend on the roads, but I believe it would be

penny wise and pound foolish if we did not spend on the roads a good proportion of the money which is found by the motorists themselves, through the tax and the duty, and make sure that progress is made on the highways of Britain corresponding to that which has been made in the other countries I have mentioned.
The second matter on which I want to appeal to the Minister is this. I have been told, when I have advocated the building of bridges, that, on account of the strain on the finances of the State, those bridges cannot be proceeded with at the moment. I say there is congestion on the roads caused by the lack of broad bridges, and by roads being narrowed to get over certain streams and rivers. I appeal to the Minister to earmark a certain sum of money each year for the next five years, at a time when the steel industry can well take care of the material and when there is little need for materials to be imported into the country, for dealing with this growing problem, and bit by bit during the next five years to do work in connection with bridges—work which cries out to be done at the present time. Having made those two appeals, I wish again to say how pleased I am that this matter has been raised for debate this afternoon. I hope that not only will the public take notice of the Debate and act more safely on the roads, but that the Minister of Transport will be able to give us a more complete, more progressive and more up-to-date scheme for the next few years.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a short time, but I feel that some of the things that have been said in one or two very remarkable speeches on the subject call for some comment. It has been said that "in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom," but I very much doubt whether the Minister of Transport will feel that that statement is true this afternoon. It is very pleasant for us to be able to get up in this Chamber and establish ourselves as authorities on any particular matter. I am sure that, with the expressions of opinion that have been made this afternoon, the Minister will be fully competent to sift the chaff from the wheat and to take that which is of value to his Department, and I hope that it will form the basis for future legislation on a problem which is indeed a ghastly one.
One hon. Member said that whenever any member of his family is late in coming home in the evening, he wonders exactly what has happened to the person. I think he reflected the thought of many hon. Members on this subject. Many of us who have young children immediately wonder, when they are late coming home in the evening, whether they have not been added to that already formidable total of people who suffer death and injury in road accidents to-day. I am fully aware that this is a problem which has grown rapidly. The industry has grown more quickly than we have been able to legislate for it. The solution of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) would be to root up the railways. The hon. and learned Member said he took off his hat to the railways in admiration of their system, and apparently because he admires them so much he proposes to abolish them, and he would, I presume, place upon our highways all the traffic which they now carry. When one considers that the average railway train carries on one journey the equivalent of what would be carried by 60 motor vehicles, and when one calculates the number of goods trains which must leave this city of London each evening and the quantity of merchandise carried by them, one has to ask oneself what kind of spectacle would be presented by the roads leading out of London if a sufficient number of vehicles were put upon them to convey all the traffic now conveyed on the railways. The suggestion is absurd.
I feel that I may err in the other direction in my treatment of this question. I realise that this country has to face an enormous problem of road construction of a type and on a scale of which we have never had experience before. But there is bound to be an interim period before we can achieve the desired effect and construct the necessary roads to deal with the traffic for which road transport is required. What is to happen in the intermediate stage? I agree with the previous speaker's plea for a segration of traffic. That is sanity. We must segregate the traffic and we must go even further. One feature which particularly strikes me as being anomalous to-day is the spectacle of the conveyance along our roads of loads which are altogether unsuitable for those roads. One sees in some parts of the country lorries with trailers conveying

loads of 30, 40 and even 50 tons weight. The roads of this country were never intended for such traffic as that. A time may come when there will be roads suitable for the transport of loads of that weight, but at present our roads are not suitable, and yet we see these abnormal loads running along at four or five or six miles an hour, to the detriment of the safety of every other road user.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) that the commercial motor vehicle driver to-day is the safest driver on the road. I take off my hat to him for the courtesy which he extends to others. It is in striking contrast to the treatment which was meted out in years gone by. We have advanced tremendously. I agree also, that, probably, the private motorist is a greater menace on the road than the commercial motorist, but the commercial motorist is called upon to deal with loads which ought not to be on the roads of to-day. We find loads which are not only excessive in weight, but excessive in width and length so that overtaking traffic has the greatest difficulty in passing them. I would like to see legislation limiting the total length of any load which is carried on the road. One finds sometimes a vehicle with one or two trailers travelling, not at 20 miles an hour but at an excessive speed, with the trailers swaying and presenting the greatest difficulty to anyone who desires to overtake and pass that vehicle. There is no opportunity for the driver to see whether it is safe for an overtaking vehicle to pass or not. I am told that there is already a limit on the length of the load which can be carried, but I think that that limit should be made much lower than it is to-day. It should not be possible for loads of the length which one finds on the road to-day to find a place there at all.
Reference has been made to the lighting of roads, and in this connection I wish to say something about motor headlights. One of the most difficult problems which I have to contend with in driving on the roads is that of the headlights of approaching vehicles. I should like legislation making compulsory the use of a dipping, not a dimming attachment. Many vehicles on the roads dim their headlights, but they are still very formidable to those who have to meet and pass


them. I also consider that the use of the white kerb is a great asset. I was in Bridgwater on Monday last. I need not explain to hon. Members the purpose which took me there. It was a very foggy night and I would not have been able to get there and complete my business on Monday night, had it not been for the fact that one of the roads which I had to traverse in the fog was fitted with an admirable white kerb, providing an excellent guide. On the off-side there were kerb reflectors. I do not know precisely where that road is, but for the purposes of driving in a fog, it is one of the best roads of which I have had experience. The kerb reflectors are a great asset, particularly on a road with which one is not too well acquainted. They indicate exactly where there are corners and whether one is on the near side or the off-side of the road. I should like local authorities to be encouraged to extend the provision of these reflectors and white kerbs for use in fog
I am afraid that I cannot give to the idea of pedestrian crossings that wholehearted support which has been accorded to it by other hon. Members. There is a place for pedestrian crossings, but at present we have far too many of them. They are not appreciated by the pedestrians and not honoured by the motorists, because they are littered about our roads in such lavish abundance. One finds them in some towns at intervals of only a few yards, and a motorist who has held up at a succession of these crossings is tempted to take a chance at the next one to which he comes. I do not think it is fair to the motorist to expect him to be able to keep his eyes on all the Belisha beacons which find place in the streets of many of our towns and cities. The motorist is called upon to keep his eye on the road, to look out for pedestrians, for stray cats and dogs and so forth, to watch out for overtaking traffic, to watch for vehicles which he is meeting and, at the same time, he is supposed to keep looking out at an angle of 45 degrees for Belisha beacons. As I say there is a place for crossings, but not in the abundance in which they exist to-day. I hope some attempt will be made to limit them to those places where there is a definite need for them, and that, wherever they are established, steps will

be taken to see that they are used by the pedestrian and honoured by the motorist.
As regards tramcars in our cities, I consider that they are a great menace to traffic. The tramcar with its fixed track is obsolete and the sooner pressure is bought to bear by the Ministry on all local authorities to scrap the tramcars and replace them either by motor vehicles or trolley buses, the better for the safety of the people in the towns. Some comment has been made on the suggestion, which has been freely canvassed, that cyclists should carry rear lamps. I cannot subscribe to that view. I do not think that cyclists should be called on to carry rear lamps. I have never found any difficulty in picking up cyclists by the rear reflectors when I am driving within the limits of my ability to stop. If we call upon the cyclist to carry a rear red light we shall encourage the motorist always to expect to see a red lamp and if the red lamp, happens to have become extinguished, then the cyclist's chances will be very small. Speaking from memory, I think the report of the committee which dealt with the question of safety on the roads showed that the highest percentage of accidents to cyclists at night occurred to cyclists who had both red lamps and red reflectors indicating that the red rear light is no safeguard, and will not render the cyclist immune from the danger of accident.
With regard to schools, I am perturbed at the number of accidents which occur to young children going into and coming out of schools, and I suggest to the Minister the establishment of a special speed-limit in streets in which schools are situated. I would suggest a reduction even to a 20 mile speed-limit in streets where young children are passing in and out of school at various hours of the day. It is not desirable that we should have a multiplicity of speed limits, but when a motorist, travelling at 30 miles an hour, comes to a sign which indicates that there is a school, it does not convey a great deal to him. He may think that it is not a time when the children are likely to be about; he does not, perhaps, pay much attention to the notice; he goes ahead and a child may be injured in consequence. In my own local council I supported a 12 miles an hour speed-limit over two miles of streets. The motorists of the town were very indignant, but the justification for such a limit is to be found in


the fact that we have not since had an accident in those streets. I hope it will also be possible for all local authorities to have a policeman, or special constable, or other official, to undertake point duty outside schools when children are entering and leaving. I understand that many of them do it now, and it is very desirable that the practice should be extended.
This problem is a colossal one. There is much traffic on the road to-day that ought not to he there, and I could not for the life of me understand the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll. It seems to me that there must be a limit to the traffic on the roads. We have an admirable railway system which is competent to deal with considerably more heavy traffic than it is carrying to-day. Yet heavy traffic is finding its way on to the roads. It is doing so for one reason only, because road transport has been allowed unrestricted freedom of competition. It has been allowed to select its traffic and to charge what it likes, even to the detriment of the men engaged in the industry. Thus it has been able to undercut the railways. I believe that much of that heavy traffic will be forced back to the place where it rightly belongs when the legislation, which, I understand, is in course of preparation by the Ministry, is brought into effect. The place for the heavy traffic of the country is on the railways of the country. There is a place for light traffic and for passenger traffic on the roads, but it is a complete fallacy to suppose that our roads are suited to carrying loads up to 50 tons. In the segregation of traffic we ought to insist on the heavy traffic being carried by the railways and retain on the roads only the traffic which rightly belongs to the road and for which the roads are fitted. Some day, I hope, we shall be able to construct roads suitable for all the traffic which requires to use road transport, but until that time comes I feel the problem must be dealt with on the lines which I have indicated.

6.14 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am sure the whole House is indebted to the hon. Members for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) and Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) for having selected as the topic for our discussion to-day one of such very considerable interest, and I thank them for their speeches. I am very pleased with the Debate that we have had, in which

a number of suggestions have been put up. I should like to assure the House at the outset that the most careful attention will be paid in the Ministry to all the different suggestions which have emanated this afternoon, and that when we come to a Debate on the Estimates, or whatever is the appropriate place for dealing at greater length with some of the problems that have been raised, perhaps there will be an opportunity to talk about them. I hope hon. Members in all quarters of the House will give me a meed of sympathy. This total of road deaths and road injuries is with me every hour of every day. You cannot come to this House or go from it without having a newspaper in your hand or a placard visible telling of some calamity on the road, and, of course, one tends to ask oneself, "Is this calamity due to something which I have left undone or which I have done wrongly"? It is a very heavy burden of responsibility. Therefore, I am indebted to hon. Members who bring this matter up and canvass it to the best of their ability and who put into the pool their different suggestions.
The problem is a very intractable one, and perhaps one of the ways in which I can best assist the House is to give the House some of the information in my possession which is perhaps not yet general information. Let me say at once that if it fell to me to give any advice to the House, on a private Members' day—and I would only do it with respect—it would be that this Motion should be accepted. I find no difficulty whatever in accepting the terms of the Motion, and consequently that would be the advice that I should respectfully tender to hon. Members. We talk of our roads, we suggest that the road system of the country is inadequate and that it is being subjected to a strain of total and of particular classes of traffic which is beyond its capacity to bear. I am sure hon. Members will realise that every day there is coming on to the roads a very considerable number of additional vehicles. It is not easy to make the balance. The number of new registrations of mechanically propelled vehicles for every day of the year ended 31st March, 1937, was something of the order of 1,293—additional registrations per day. I agree that there is a certain number of cars that are dropping out of registration, a certain number coming off the roads, a certain


number registered which do not immediately come on to the roads, but making any allowances you like, whatever problem you have to deal with, it is not a static one, but is one that is being added to at the rate of something of the order of 1,000 new cars on to your roads every day. Therefore, the problem is an immense one.
I do not want to derive any undue satisfaction from any turn in the tide, and the hon. Member for Central Hackney was right to call attention to the slight improvement there is, but I ask the House to realise that if your problem is increasing and your accidents are either stationary or declining, it means that you are not merely making some effort, but that you are catching up with the problem. I am not sure that the figures which the hon. Member for Central Hackney gave were quite clear. For the first 10 months of this year the deaths were 140 less and the injuries 2,233 less. Just as the stories that we have been told, heartbreaking in character, of individual calamities make a great impression upon us, I am sure that we shall be utterly unable to realise the extent of human happiness that 140 deaths less and 2,235 injuries less really involve; and while I derive no particular comfort from it, it is a step in the right direction.
Naturally a good deal has been said to-day which is not really appropriate to a discussion of road fatalities, but is much more appropriate to a general debate on transport, and there is, therefore, a number of suggestions with which I will not attempt now to deal, but I wonder whether the House as a whole and the country outside have made up their minds quite clearly how far the responsibility for road accidents can be a matter within the Ministry of Transport itself. I have listened very carefully to-day. A great number of suggestions were made, a great number of contributions were put forward, and a great number of instances of blame were given, but I detected very few which in any way came down to the state or condition of the road itself. In fact, the hon. Member who opened the discussion pointed out what a very large percentage of accidents did not happen at the nasty corner or on the steep hill, but happened rather on the straight road. I am sure this House will realise that the Ministry of Transport is responsible for

co-ordinating the work of highway authorities and for laying down on the trunk roads the schemes of development, but we are not responsible for the enforcement of the law, for the conduct of users of the roads. That is a matter for the police and the Home Office; that is a matter of control. As for the penalties which magistrates or courts of justice may inflict, they have nothing at all to do with the Ministry. I know that it is no answer to say, "It is not our particular business," but I want the House and the country to realise that when this total of road accidents comes up for consideration and when people say, "What is the Minister of Transport doing about it?" the answer may well be that the Minister of Transport would join all individual Members of the House in wishing that the law were more often enforced or that the penalties were greater. Those are matters on which I could be very vocal at times.
I want to examine, first and foremost, any matter that may directly come within my own responsibility. For instance, if there is something to do with road surface or road cambering or something to do with a too narrow bridge or with lighting, matters that come within my province, I would wish to look at them first, because they are a direct responsibility, and I would like to lend the weight of such influence as I may possess to induce other Departments of the State to look at the problem on a wide basis, because, of course, for road accidents the remedy is not a one-man or a one-Department job. A great many voluntary services are hard at work, producing excellent results in their particular lines. I shall have something to say in a moment about some interesting experiments with school children that are taking place, and with the "Safety First" movement up and down the country that are all bringing the right influences to bear, and I have an extremely interesting piece of information to give to the House as to the results in a very great area, the County of Lancashire, of a special concentration of mobile police along stretches of roads where there were large numbers of casualties before the police came on to advise greater caution.
But the summing up of all the speeches that I have heard to-day and of the effects of the information that I have here leads me to reaffirm in the strongest possible


way that the greatest individual contributory cause of casualties on the road is lack of care, lack of consideration, selfishness. Really, if that is so, our remedy is not so much in altering the road system as in endeavouring to alter the standard of conduct on the road. It may be that the road system wants extending, but I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole), who delighted us with the speech to which we have just listened, when he said that whatever you do with your road system, there must be an intervening period in which your responsibility is very considerable.
There is one other thought that I would like to contribute, and that is that, shocking, dreadful, as is this total of killed and injured on the road, we must not get it out of proportion. I do not want merely to say that there are countries where the total is greater, but I want to remind hon. Members that very little research on their part will show the dreadful total of accidents, fatal and otherwise, that occur in so many walks of life, in industry, in workmen's compensation, in preventible disease, in poisoning, in burns, in chemical suffocation, in drowning—a tremendous list of which one hears very little. I agree that it does not make my case any better to point out these facts, but I am anxious that the House, in looking at what is a grave total that shocks the imagination, should not pass by quite silently other great families of accidents which are rarely probed into, rarely examined, and, therefore, rarely condemned. The statistical reviews by the Registrar-General show, for instance, that there are some 20,000 fatal accidents in a year from a variety of causes, and those totals are impressive when we are dealing with what we recognise to be the shocking figure of 6,000 or 6,500 deaths on the roads. I want to tell the House that the deaths on the roadways in the United States in 1937 were over 40,000 and that in Germany they approximated to 8,000. I do not want to go into comparisons with numbers of cars, population, and miles; I want merely to give the staggering fact of the totals with which we are dealing.
Now perhaps I may give this piece of information about Lancashire, which I think to be so particularly important. The Chief Constable has been trying a most interesting experiment, by using a large

number of mobile police, by increasing the number of cautions and decreasing the number of prosecutions, by establishing a code of good conduct on the road rather than a very great anxiety to punish bad conduct. He has enlisted the interest and activities of the whole of his force to reduce accidents, and it has had a most heartening effect. For the six months ended 30th September of this year the average reduction in accidents throughout the country was 5 per cent., but in Lancashire, where this special experiment was at work, it was 46 per cent. Of course, six months is too short a period in which to judge of the possibilities of this scheme being applied universally. There is something in novelty, there is something in concentration, and it may be that the concentration in this particular direction has meant some slight slackening of observation in other directions, but at any rate there is a most valuable report in the hands of my Ministry from this Chief Constable of Lancashire, to whom I express my undoubted indebtedness, not only for the effect of his work, but for the lead which I think he has given.
I may tell the House that on one particular road where accidents were very bad the chief constable, not content with his general concentration, not content with the idea of getting mobile police units on to this particular road, but with the idea of making a real dead set at it to prevent these particular black spots occurring again and again, had this effect, that by concentration on that bad road he has reduced the accidents there by 73 per cent. That is a very startling result. If it is possible by the exercise of greater care, by pointing out how driving errors can be avoided, if it is possible on one bad stretch of road to bring down the accidents by 73 per cent., there is more hope of our being able to tackle this intractable problem than I had before this information was placed in my hands.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister mention the nature of that report?

Mr. Burgin: It is a long report and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to send it to him. I hope that hon. Members will not be offended if they have made statements that do not tally with the regulations or the law and I or the Parliamentary Secretary send them the regulations which provide the very things


they were recommending should take place. The hon. Member for Lichfield, for instance, wanted limits of length and weight, which are already law, and I propose to send the hon. Member the information I have because it shows the way in which we are already working on those lines.

Sir Reginald Clarry: It would interest the House if my right hon. Friend gave a little detail of the actual steps taken in Lancashire to effect this wonderful result.

Mr. Burgin: I would like to do that, but I am not sure that this is the right occasion for it. I would like to do it on some occasion when I can deal adequately with the information contained in the report. I am merely using it now as an example. I was so struck with the consensus of opinion in the House that this was a human factor problem, and I think that the evidence I am adducing rather serves to point that out and to show that it is very largely a matter within human control.
There are one or two specific points which I think it is better to dispose of now. There was a suggestion about lighting-up time. One or two speakers seemed to think that if lighting-up time were altered there would be a considerable improvement in conditions. It is, however, a matter of Statute and it would need legislation to make an alteration. What I think is more interesting is that 70 per cent. of the road accidents involving personal injury occur in daylight, and I would rather deal with the larger size loaf than with the smaller. Of the other accidents, 4 per cent. occur at dusk, and the remaining 26 in the dark. It is not practicable to deduce from these figures any effect which a variation of half an hour one way or the other would bring about, and I am inclined to think that hon. Members are pursuing a wrong cause for accidents if they attribute it to lighting-up time. I think that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith), in his vigorous denunciation of the profession to which I belong, rather overstepped the limit in thinking that the "L" driver who went out on Sunday with a number of people at the back of the car was a danger to other road users. That it happens and that it is reprehensible I have no doubt, but that it is a major cause of

accidents is not the case. We cannot find that the "L" driver is a material cause of accidents. We should concentrate on what clearly is the cause of accidents rather than spread our net too wide and wander into a number of unprofitable inquiries.
There is one other fact which I should like to give for the benefit of the general discussion on this matter. That is that there were 575 fatal accidents last year in which no mechanically-propelled vehicle was concerned. I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherhithe that we do not want to allow antagonism to grow up between those who own or use mechanically-propelled vehicles and those who do not, but I thought the House would be interested in this figure. Of that number 287 were pedal cyclists who came to grief without any contact with a mechanically-propelled vehicle.
The only other matter to which I think it necessary to draw attention is the time table of the public service express vehicle going, say, from London to Scotland. A suggestion was made by more than one speaker that time tables were published from which it was clear that the distance could only be traversed by some infringement of the law. The Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 72, Sub-section (3), says that the Commissioners shall not grant a road service licence if it appears to them from the particulars furnished that the speed of the motor vehicle would contravene the law. The Traffic Commissioners have as their duty closely to scrutinise the time tables of the long-distance coach services, the time table being a condition of the licence and scheduled to the licence itself. The Commissioners have to satisfy themselves that it is possible to do the journey, including stops, safely within the 30-mileper-hour limit. If hon. Members have individual cases which come to their knowledge in which they think that provision is infringed, I should be grateful if, in a spirit of collaboration, they would be good enough to bring the evidence to me, but here is the law as hon. Members would wish it to be.

Mr. Buchanan: Have there been any accidents on these coach routes to Scotland?

Mr. Burgin: I think not. I will make inquires, but I am not aware that this is a source of accidents. I rather gather that the hon. Member was using it for


a different argument. His case was that most of these accidents are brought about by speed. He desires that there should be a lower speed limit, and in support of that argument he adduced a time table which, he said, could never be satisfied if the speed limit were observed. I say that the law is correct and that it lays down that there should not be such a time table, but I invite hon. Members to tell me of any cases to the contrary which come to their notice.
I cannot subscribe to the view that the real cause of this trouble is speed. I wish it were so simple that we could diagnose one particular cause. The reason I cannot subscribe to that view is this. Of the whole of our accidents, what is the percentage which occurs within areas to which a speed limit now applies? The answer is that 76 per cent. of all accidents happen in areas where there is a speed limit, not because the speed is reduced, not because there is a legal provision, but because the speed limit applies only to a built-up area and that accidents and congestion are two different aspects of the same problem. Accidents occur where there are great agglomerations of people going about their ordinary business, and these accidents happen by a mixed contribution of carelessness in different degrees from different classes. Alter the human factor, and we shall make the biggest inroad on accidents. Point out to me any specific remedy which I can adopt, and I am willing sympathetically to consider it. The human factor is, and will remain, the principal cause, and that gives us the greatest hope.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Montague: I am rather inclined to think that the conclusion drawn by the Minister of Transport from the facts to which he has just referred is not as warranted as he imagines. A number of considerations have to be borne in mind, one of them being the fact that accidents which arise where there are speed limits are not all in the most congested parts of towns. They occur in big city areas upon which a great amount of speeding is done by selfish and inconsiderate motorists, irrespective of the fact that the speed limit exists. Of course, there are bound to be more accidents in the neighbourhood of large aggregations of humanity than in the country. Some hon. Members seemed to express the view

that it was unfortunate that Members who were not practical motorists should take part in this discussion. I am not a practical motorist. I am a practical pedestrian. The attitude of mind of those hon. Members who appear to object in that way is expressed clearly in their objection. I agree with the Minister of Transport that it is undesirable to classify people into pedestrians and motorists and to set up, as it were, a class war.
Surely, however, when we are considering the question of pedestrians versus motorists—if one is entitled to use "versus"—one must consider the fact that the pedestrian is one human being while the motorist is a human being in possession of a considerable amount of machinery which is capable of big potential speeds of anything from eight to 20 horse power in capacity, and carrying burdens often amounting to many tons. That fact makes a big difference on the side of the pedestrian if we are making comparisons between the responsibility of one and the responsibility of the other. The motorist must have an initial extra burden or responsibility as he is in possession of an instrument of that character and potentiality. I was a members of the Transport Commission in 1929 and I signed a report which expressed the view that a universal speed limit of 20 miles an hour could not be enforced, was not being enforced, and, for reasons that have been given in similar cases, was a restriction which made an absurdity of the law. That report was acted upon by legislation and I am still inclined to the view that mere restriction of speed is not the way in which we shall solve this problem of slaughter upon the roads. There should be speed limits, and strictly enforced speed limits, in built-up areas and they should be more consistent than they are. There may be a case for the extension of areas with strictly enforced speed limits, but I do not think a general speed limit is a very practicable method of dealing with this question. I imagine that there are other ways of dealing with it. I can see the difficulties of them, and later I shall have a word to say about what the Minister of Transport said regarding the Lancashire experiment.
We have been reminded that motor cars are being advertised and sold to-day upon the basis of their capacity for high speed. I do not say that the average motorist


is the terribly selfish person that some people suggest. I have said that I am a practical pedestrian rather than a motorist, but I do a considerable amount of motoring in other people's cars in connection with political work in the country, and I think the position is very much on a par with that see-saw of opinion described in Jerome's book "Three men in a boat," contrasting the journey when it was made in one way up the river and in another way down the river. But, after all, the pedestrian ought to be considered in a rather different light from that represented by the attitude of mind of some of those who have taken part in the discussion. I have seen pedestrians who were jay walkers, if you like, and have felt the irritation of the motorist, because I was in a motor car at the time; and I have seen cyclists just veer a bit and cause a little consternation or difficulty for the driver, and have had the same feeling as the driver about the stupidity of the cyclist; but I am not sure that there is not a case for stupidity. The idea that people in possession of cars represent progress and the other people, the jay walkers, represent something which is very old-fashioned and has to fade away, is not an idea which I am prepared to accept. I think the pedestrian has rights, even if he does not wish to be, or is not constitutionally capable of being, always on the qui vine against the possibility of being knocked down and slaughtered.
With regard to motor car advertisements, I can speak with some experience because at one time I was in the advertising business and I once wrote the copy for motor tyre advertisements. I was very proud of a slogan, "Eating up the miles," which I invented. Since then I have been rather sorry that I invented it. I have since come to the conclusion that that slogan did not belong to an age of reason, and I am inclined to agree with the writer of an article who said the most appropriate slogan was "Robots of the world unite" in respect of this particular problem, where it cannot be altogether true to say that we have nothing to lose but our lanes, because I am afraid we have lost a good deal of those as a result of the developments of road traffic. I challenge hon. Members to go into the Library and examine the motor car advertisements in "Punch" or any of the other high class papers. Almost without

exception he will realise that the implication in the advertisements is that the motorist is most concerned about "eating up the miles." The idea is that people with money to spend upon expensive motor cars are more concerned about how many miles an hour they can get out of the car than they are about the rational use of this new instrument of locomotion. I think that is indicative of the attitude of a small but very dangerous section of the motoring public.
There is one other subject which I hesitate to mention but which I feel ought to be mentioned. A good number of the Members of this House know that I am no pussyfoot. I do not believe in restrictions and prohibitions, and do not think we can alter the habits of human beings very much by Acts of Parliament, but I must confess to a very considerable degree of concern at the number of road houses to be seen round about London and in other parts of the country. I have no objection to them; I think the idea of the better "pub" is an excellent one, leading to a more rational attitude to the question of drink and making people more temperate, but when I note the enormous number of cars parked outside those places, especially at week-ends, I cannot help feeling that here is something which ought to be looked into and which may be responsible, to a considerable extent, for some of the selfishness and some of the slaughter.
With regard to the jay walker, the pedestrian, I recall that in my youth I read a book called "The Right to be Lazy," which was a set-off against the idea of the right to work. I am inclined to agree that there is a right to be a jay walker. Of course there is a certain element of exaggeration in this, I know that the problem is a difficult one, that it is one which has two sides, but the other side ought to be stated in face of the calm assumption of some people that pedestrians must use torches, if you please. Because other people are able to buy motor cars, expensive bits of machinery with great destructive power if not used properly, the poor pedestrian must always be on the look out against being knocked over and having his life taken away.

Sir L. Smith: The hon. Member is saying that my suggestion that pedestrians should carry a torch is a hardship, but we


must remember that the cyclist and the motorist are compelled to carry lights to indicate the position they are in on the roads. Why is the pedestrian in a different position?

Mr. Montague: The answer is obvious. The motorist has something to put lights upon and the pedestrian has not. The point is that the motorist is something more than a single person because he has this machine, with all the responsibility attached to it. The idea that pedestrians have got to wear white clothes—that suggestion has been mooted—and all that sort of thing is not quite good enough. I do not say there ought to be speed limits out in the country—I am expressing my personal views only—but there ought to be some method of preventing the misuse of the motor car by that minority of motorists whose only idea is speed. There are two fetishes in the world to-day: one is speed, and the other is knocking balls about. The idea that we must get from one place to another as fast as we can does not strike me as at all progressive, because it does not go with the right attitude to human life and to social amenities, and I do not think it goes with the right attitude to one's surroundings and to Nature. But that is a matter of philosophy,
The point, shortly, is that we ought to be able to have—I do not say through the Ministry of Transport, because, as the Minister has said, it is a Home Office question—some way of controlling the bad motorists, and the best way I can think of is that those who are proved in a court of law to be misusing the power they possess as drivers of motor cars should be punished, and should be punished consistently, and to a degree that has some definite reference to the danger they are to society. I am afraid that the lack of consistency and the fact that there are upon the bench too many people with the motoring point of view has a great deal to do with the present state of affairs. Personally, I do not think the speed limit idea is the right one, but I would say that in every case where accidents occur, due to drink, for instance, there ought to be penalties which would include prison, penalties which would be to a reasonable extent in accord with the character of the offence.
The statement made by the Minister about the experiment in Lancashire was a very interesting one, and I suppose that it does prove, as he suggested, that it is possible to reduce this slaughter upon the road if measures are taken to alter the attitude of mind and the habits of people who use the road; but there is just this point about it. The experiment was concerned with the use of mobile police. The presence of mobile police may have a psychological effect upon a motorist and everybody else concerned. We have to wait to know what happens when the mobile police are withdrawn, because we cannot always have them operating upon dangerous roads, or main roads, in order to prevent slaughter. I shall be very much interested, as I am sure will every other Member, to read the report upon that experiment and to hear the further explanation of the Minister of Transport with reference to that experiment and the other which he mentioned. On the whole I think the Debate has been a useful one, and I hope that the point of view of the pedestrian and the cyclist will be treated with more consideration by some people than has been the case in the past. That will be so only if they recognise that the pedestrian has a right not only to the use of the road but to the reasonable use of the road, and that he has a right to look at the countryside without having always at the back of his mind the thought that over the brow of the hill or round the next corner may come a big engine of destruction, and that he must get out of its way or perish. There must be some compromise between the two interests involved, and because I am not a practical motorist I am afraid that the balance of my interest is upon the side of the pedestrian.

7.0 p.m.

Sir R. Clarry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have had a very interesting discussion, and the conclusion that we must all arrive at is one of sympathy with the Minister of Transport in his difficulty of trying to get accidents down further than at present. Knowing him as we all do we can be assured of his active appreciation of the seriousness of the problem. It cannot be solved by just passing one piece of legislation or by effecting one alteration. Even a speed limit will not necessarily affect the great


acceleration of the toll of the roads, although it will go that way. Another point on which we shall all agree is that deaths and accidents would be materially less if the highways were adequate to our requirements. For that, again, we cannot blame the Minister. That is the situation as we find it, and we can only use our own efforts to give him the urge and the authority to get on and endeavour to make our highway system adequate to the growing demands of the users of the roads. It has been proved by figures that the main cause of road accidents is the absence of road sense of all users of the roads, and to a large extent to the absence of road manners on the part of motorists. I am an old motorist. I have been owning and driving a car for 35 years. I find no pleasure at all now in doing it. I do not drive if I can possibly help it, largely because I am afraid my patience is not what it used to be, and my sense of toleration is not the same as it was many years ago. The pleasure derived from driving, owing to the lack of manners on the road, is not what it was many years ago. I was very interested to hear of the results obtained by the chief constable of Lancashire, and I should have liked to have heard more about the steps that it is intended to take.
There are some suggestions that I should like to throw out as to possible ways of educating the public with the object of lessening accidents. I think it would be a useful service if the Ministry could initiate short films, of not more than two minutes, to be attached to the usual news reels in all cinemas regularly every day, every week, all over the country—something useful, in the form of a strip cartoon if you like, but something which would bring home to everyone who saw the film the dangers of the road, purely educational, as to what might happen and whose child it might be. Recently I saw a short American film on the same lines in which the conclusion was drawn that "it might be your child who was killed." It was not the child's fault. It was not anyone's fault. It was a pure accident, largely due to lack of education and sense on everyone's part. Another suggestion—I think it is copied indirectly from an American idea—is that each city, borough or county should be segregated for the purpose of

ascertaining the number of fatal accidents and injuries, with statistics published monthly, in order to establish a competitive record of each of these places as to how well they were doing in eliminating accidents in their areas. At the moment Lancashire stands supreme. It has made a great effort and it has got good results. If the idea could be spread and made competitive, with the monthly publication of figures, it could only assist the end that we all have in mind.
Another point is that we should inaugurate, through the Ministry of Transport or some other appropriate channel, a voluntary safety service, that is to say, that individuals of known integrity, whether motorists, pedestrians or cyclists, should have the facility of reporting every case they see of indiscretion, discourtesy and carelessness on the road, whether by a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist, and have an opportunity of reporting the case to a police station or some central headquarters where a note could be sent to the delinquent drawing his attention to the fact. It may be said that we do not want to have a lot of spies about the roads, but that would not be the object. The object would be to impress on all road users the absolute necessity of courtesy to all other road users. I am certain it would have nothing but a good effect if some movement of that kind could be inaugurated. Referring back to my suggestion about putting cities, boroughs and counties in competition in the way they deal with safety on the roads, the Minister might consider the possibility—I do not offer this as a firm suggestion—whether certain concessions could be made in speed limits in areas that show a certain standard of road sense and management—in other words, give them some reward for the service that they are doing to the community by reducing the terrible toll of the roads. I hope my remarks will be taken as constructive, but I do not want to lose sight, and I do not want the Minister—I know he does not—to lose sight of the fact that one of the main causes of accidents is the inadequate highway system. I do not blame him, but I hope the House will be able to bring pressure to bear on him and give him authority to get adequate finance in order to bring our highway system up to meet the existing and growing demands, and reduce accidents in consequence.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I am sure the House welcomes the sympathetic way in which the Minister has approached the Motion, and we on this side welcome the fact that he has apparently determined to advise the House to accept it. He seemed to be of the opinion that the speed-limit has little or nothing to do with the great increase of accidents, that the real cause is the human factor, and that with more consideration on the part of motor drivers, more observance of the courtesies of the road and a little less eagerness on the part of drivers to "eat up the miles," in which process they often eat up the pedestrians, accidents would be fewer. I agree that the whole of the responsibility does not rest upon the driver. I have no doubt that the House will not agree with the witness in a certain case who, asked what he thought was the reason for a collision between two cars, expressed the opinion that both drivers were chasing the same pedestrian. I do not think that hon. Members will resort to the extreme step of blaming the driver to that extent. But, if it is true that the human factor is responsible for a large percentage of accidents, surely, if the driver is driving at an excessive speed, and there is no limit to the speed to which he can put the car, it follows that the human factor is at a disadvantage as compared with the mechanical instrument in the hands of the motorist. It is a pity that in a Debate of this kind where two Departments are concerned the House should not have the advantage of the presence of a representative of the Home Office as well as of the Ministry of Transport, which would have made the discussion a little more complete.
If the Minister and I are in agreement that more consideration should be shown by drivers, can we not agree upon some method whereby we can put a check upon those drivers? There is one suggestion that I would put forward, though I recognise it does not, possibly, come within the purview of the Ministry of Transport. It is that, instead of allowing drivers or owners to insure to the extent of 100 per cent, of their potential liability, they should be prohibited from insuring to a higher percentage than, say, 75 or 80. The effect of that would be to meet the objection raised by the Minister. I have felt myself in driving, and I daresay others have, that there is a sense of irresponsibility

to the extent of saying to oneself, "If anything happens that costs financial damage as the result of my action, I shall not suffer as far as my pocket is concerned." If the motorist were confined to an insurance of 80 per cent. it would make a great difference to the conduct of drivers. Though this may not be a matter for the Ministry of Transport, I hope the suggestion will not be overlooked.
There is another matter that does come within the purview of the Ministry—the footpaths along the motor roads. The Ministry has great influence with local authorities in this matter. I have been walking through Kent recently, and I was astonished to find how many miles of roads there are without any footpath at all. I remember walking from Herne Bay to Canterbury, on a secondary road it is true, but for five miles there was no footpath at all. The Minister will know the percentage of accidents on motor roads without footpaths. There are many accidents for that reason which ought never to take place. I hope the Minister's influence will be brought to bear upon local authorities to make regulations and that wherever there is a road without a footpath the local authority will be pressed to provide that measure of protection for the pedestrian. Although the Minister may have no power to deal with the insurance suggestion, I hope that it will not be overlooked. I am certain that if the motorist had to pay a matter of 20 per cent. of the sum insured in the case of damage or injury, he would drive more carefully and that in the end the number of accidents would be reduced.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Levy: I think that we were all interested in the Minister's remarks, particularly when he divided the subject into two parts, one part for which he held responsibility, and the other part which he said was the human part. With regard to the first part, the Minister obviously admits that he is responsible for road surfaces. Many road surfaces in built-up areas are not non-skid. I have in mind the road immediately outside my house in Holland Park Avenue, from Notting Hill Gate to Shepherds Bush. After the slightest shower of rain one is not surprised that there should be accidents but surprised rather that there are not more accidents at this place. Cars are skidding all over the road like little boys with


scooters. People from the local authority throw down sand occasionally. If the Minister wants to go over a dangerous road, I suggest that he should inspect this one. It ought to be compulsory upon highway authorities to ensure that all roads have non-skid surfaces. That would certainly help the motorist better to control his car.
With regard to lorry drivers, of whom we have heard so much, I should like as an old motorist to pay my tribute to lorry drivers and bus drivers. They are good drivers and courteous and, unless they are passing other traffic, they always run on the near side of the road. In regard to taxi cabs, when they have a fare, they think that everybody is in their way. When they have not a fare they crawl about, and they are in everybody else's way. They contribute largely to accidents for which they ought to be held responsible, although they may not themselves be involved.
The cause of accidents can be summed up in one word—"impatience." The pedestrian is impatient, because he is in such a hurry to cross the road, the cyclist is impatient and the motorist is impatient. In contrast to bus and lorry drivers, the ordinary private motorist appears to make a hobby of holding the centre of the road instead of driving on the near side and drawing out only when passing. A number of the new roads are built with two lines of traffic, and the centre line becomes nothing but a battleground for passing motorists. This contributes to many deaths. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to insist that new roads are made wide enough so that there are two lines of traffic on each side of the centre, similar to the road towards Epping and on the Southend Road. I am sure they are the best kind of road.
With regard to speed, I have always held that the 30-mile limit in built-up areas is of no value and that in fact, you create accidents. To prevent accidents you should stop dangerous driving. As an old motorist I say that you can drive dangerously at 10 miles an hour and perfectly safely at 50 miles an hour, and certainly at 30 miles an hour. To tell a person that he is all right as long as he goes at 30 miles an hour through any town is asking for trouble. I put it to the Minister that there are a good many roads now restricted that ought not to

be restricted. One can approach such large towns as Birmingham and find the 30-mile limit well outside any built-up area. You can go long distances on roads between fields, where there is not a house, and yet the road is restricted. Such municipalities place their 30-mile limit sign at their boundary line irrespective of whether the area is built up or not. This annoys the motorist. In these times one has to get about more quickly than formerly, and to do as much in one day as many years ago people did in two. To the hon. Member opposite who referred to the use of high-powered cars in order to obtain speed I say with great respect that that is not the angle taken by the majority of big car owners, who look upon the bigger car as more comfortable riding and more capable of control. It does not necessarily follow that you want to go at a greater speed. I think he is quite wrong. I hope the Minister will insist that all highway authorities put down non-skid road surfaces where these do not exist at the present time.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I am a pedestrian of 50 years' experience, a cyclist of 40 years' experience and a motorist of 30 years' experience. We are all made of the same stuff. I would refer to the report on road accidents in Great Britain, issued by the Minister of Transport, and in which he said:
The most frequent cause of accidents attributed to drivers was lack of care when emerging or turning from one road into another.
That being so, I cannot understand why it is that more use is not made of the "Halt" sign. Accidents have been considerably reduced in many instances where the "Halt" sign has been erected, and I cannot see why that precaution cannot be taken on every occasion when a minor road crosses a major road. The fact that improvement has taken place where they have been erected is sufficient reason why they should be made compulsory on all occasions. I do not know whether local authorities have the right to erect these signs without permission from the Minister of Transport, but I think he should give instructions for them to be erected on all possible occasions.
The report to which I have referred says that the most frequent cause of accidents is speed. The suggestion has


already been made that automatic governors should be fitted on vehicles that should not proceed beyond 30 miles an hour. I cannot see any reason why that suggestion should not be carried out. Why cannot a connection from the speed indicator be fixed to the rear of all cars? We have heard of the improvement that has taken place in Lancashire as a result of extra special precautions over a period of six months, but we have not yet heard the details, and we have, of course, to take into consideration the cost. It has been stated several times in this House to-day that to enforce the law a policeman would have to drive on every car, particularly in regard to the speed limit. That is not necessary. A device for indicating speed and to go at the rear of the car could be made for probably 5s. or less. It could be illuminated by a red light when the speed exceeds 30 miles an hour and it ought to have a dial of sufficient size to be read as easily as can the number plate. I feel convinced that there would be considerable gain in preventing motorists from exceeding the speed limit by the employment of such a device. It would not cost more than number plates and a rear light. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to some sort of device for that purpose.
We have heard about pedestrian crossings. I see in this report that only 5 per cent. of the accidents occurred on pedestrian crossings. If no one used the pedestrian crossings there would be no accidents there. I very much doubt their value, as used at the present moment. The right of the pedestrian is not enforced. There seems to be no care taken to ensure that he should have that right. You can go across streets in London but you have to wait for the traffic. If the accidents at pedestrian crossings have been reduced it is due to the care of the pedestrians waiting for drivers rather than to drivers waiting for pedestrians. These wretched beacons were erected throughout the country on roads where there is hardly any traffic, I believe at a cost of £16 or £17 each. They are not worth 16s. or 17s., when it comes to considering what lives they have saved.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Member really think that it is of no value to a pedestrian to have a part of the road on which he has an absolute right of way?

Mr. Higgs: That is not what I said. I said that unless the right of the pedestrian were enforced on pedestrian crossings, the crossings were useless. This terrible toll of 6,000 or 7,000 deaths goes on. A railway, aeroplane or mining accident receives great publicity, but because hundreds of thousands of people are killed individually each year we say little or nothing about the matter. This terrible toll does not take place in a collective manner. The Minister told us that 70 per cent. of the accidents take place in the daylight, 4 per cent. in the dusk and the rest in the dark. I would remind the House that dusk exists for probably 4 per cent. of our time and that considerably more motoring takes place during the daylight than in the dark. Therefore, I do not think, with all due respect to the Minister, that there was much point in making that statement. I hope that he will take notice of what has been said about rear indicators on cars. I think it would contribute considerably to a reduction of excessive speed where that speed was not permitted. I am sure we have all appreciated the action of hon. Members opposite in bringing forward this important matter. This is one of the days on which private Members' time has been very well spent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House views with concern the continued high rate of road accidents in spite of existing measures, and therefore calls for more effective action for the public safety.

DEATH PENALTY.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I beg to move,
That this House would welcome legislation by which the death penalty should be abolished in time of peace for an experimental period of five years.
This Motion was to have been seconded by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). In his unavoidable absence, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has readily and kindly undertaken the task. We have just been considering those violent deaths which accidentally happen upon the highways. I must now invite the House to turn to another kind of violent death, not accidental, but deliberate, cold-blooded, controllable and ceremonious. Perhaps some of my hon.


Friends might be inclined to say that this theme is not important enough to challenge the attention of the House of Commons at such a time as the present, but if that is said, with respect I cannot agree. The death penalty is a most important element in our penal system. It is important to the condemned man, to his relatives, to the Home Secretary, and, indeed, to the whole community in whose name this terrible sanction is invoked. It is a matter of concern, not only to that limited group of men and women whom it may be hoped to deter from murder, but also to the whole vast public which has not the remotest desire to commit any act of violence. Only to the victim of a murder is it no longer of any concern at all. To him all the executions in the world will not avail to restore a single moment's life. I believe that within the minds of all of us from time to time there inevitably rises the hideous spectacle of an execution. I cannot help believing that my hon. Friends in all quarters of the House would gladly dispense with this penalty if they could be convinced that no evil consequences would follow, so I think I can at least assume much good will in favour of this Motion. I have to try to show that desire and duty coincide.
The words "in time of peace" have been included in the Motion because, if war were to break out, it would be necessary for the State to reserve to itself abnormal powers. We cannot merely by legislation expect to modify the savage incidents of international conflict. The purpose of including the experimental period of five years is two-fold. First, it agrees with one of the recommendations made by a majority of the Select Committee of the House presided over by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr), which heard evidence and reported in the years 1929 and 1930. Moreover, that provision emphasises the power of this House to reverse any decision which legislation might produce. Of course, it will always be open to Parliament to restore the death penalty, to suspend it, or even to extend its application; and all of us, in our more flippant and less charitable moments, have said we would like to enlarge the net to catch a number of undesirable and unattractive fish. For my part, however, I am convinced that, if once the death penalty were abolished, it would not again

within measurable time find a place within our penal system. If I imagined that this reform which I am proposing would be likely to produce a spate of murders, or even by a very few to increase the annual total, I would not for a moment dream of supporting it. Every hon. Member, I hope, will agree that the community is entitled to protect itself. Indeed, most of us would say that, if this country or its friends were attacked, we should not shrink from war itself to defend our national existence.
I imagine that in a civilised community the functions of a penal system are three. You seek to punish the offender; you try to reform him; and you aim at deterring others from renewing his offence. There seems to me to be no case for precise retaliation and for exact retribution. Our penal practice is not founded on any such theory. When a crime is committed, nobody is permitted to wreak private and personal vengeance upon the offender. If, for example, I am maliciously wounded, the courts intervene against the culprit and take charge of the offence. If a relative of mine is murdered, however passionate my anger may be, I am not allowed to destroy the murderer. Nor do we repay the offender by doing him the wrong that he has done to others. We do not maim the man who has maimed another. If a man commits arson, we do not burn down his house. We do not steal from thieves. So I cannot think it is rational to argue that, simply because a man has committed a murder, he should therefore himself be killed. Indeed, if a murder is wrong, how can an execution be right?
The text, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," may perhaps be cited to-night. I have never been able to understand why that maxim should ever be quoted in a Christian community. With the greatest possible respect, I must say that we cannot in this controversy evade our religious duties. That Mosaic precept which I have just cited was specifically repealed by the Founder of the Christian faith. The death penalty, therefore, seems to me to offend grossly against Christian teaching. It cannot be remedied; it cannot be repaired; and it cannot be revoked. By using it we take it upon ourselves to blot out a man or a woman from earthly existence, to wipe them off the scroll of the living, to drop them into eternity. It is, indeed, strange


to correct one killing by perpetrating a second.
One of the worst features that marks the trial where a man's life is at stake has always seemed to me to be the false heroism with which he is sometimes invested. But, when once he is condemned, I believe that the punishment he then has to sustain—that of waiting during the final period of three weeks for the terrible moment that he knows is coming—often greatly exceeds the sufferings of his unwarned victim. I suggest that the purpose of a healthy society should be as far as possible, while seeing that the community is protected, to reform the offender. I have never heard of anyone who has been improved by hanging. For my part, I cannot believe that any of those sane men and women who alone can be visited with the death penalty are totally incapable of leading better lives.
I think, therefore, that we can come now to the main issue, which is contained in these three questions: How far is the death penalty necessary as a deterrent? Is it the best deterrent? Will any other deterrent do equally well? Clearly the death penalty is not successful in deterring in every case. It is not a perfect deterrent, because we still have murders. In 1929, there were 131 murders known to the police; in 1932 there were 125. The annual average between 1932 and 1935 rose as high as 154. The death penalty, therefore, which has long been practised in this country for murder and for three other offences which we need not consider to-night, cannot be said to have reduced the rate of murder. I do not think that is surprising. One of the worst features of the death penalty is its unavoidable uncertainty. Yet it has always been agreed that a punishment is most likely to deter if it is certain. Certainty is much more important than mere severity.
The elements in this uncertainty can, I think, be easily discerned. First, there is the big possibility of a reprieve, to which nobody can object. I should think, indeed that the Home Secretary feels intensely relieved in the exercise of his terrible, anxious, and, as I think, unnecessary jurisdiction when he feels himself able to commute a sentence. Over the last 10 years, rather more than half the persons sentenced to death have been reprieved. Each year during the last

decade, on an average, approximately 55 persons were charged with murder, excluding those who were guilty of the special crime of infanticide, which, as hon. Members are aware, has not incurred the death penalty since 1922. Infanticides, on an average, number yearly about 15. The total number of death sentences varies each year. Twenty is a normal figure. As a rule rather fewer than 10 are actually executed.
Some persons charged are acquitted in the early stages, before the Assizes are reached. Some are found guilty of a less degree of homicide than murder. But I cannot reject the belief that juries are not infrequently reluctant to convict on capital charges, and every hon. Member in this House, I will be bound, would share precisely the same reluctance, the same dread of making a frightful and irremediable mistake. A certain weight of evidence would satisfy us in cases where in the background there did not loom the gallows; an equivalent weight would be insufficient on a murder charge. Compassion, emotion, the perfectly natural fear of a mistake, may all work on the minds of a jury. Evidence which on any other charge would have involved a conviction can be so ignored that one of two courses may be taken by the jury. They may bring in a verdict of "Not Guilty." Or they may return a verdict of "Guilty but insane," when a man will be sent, as everyone knows, to Broadmoor for life. Either result is liable to happen when a penalty is being preserved which no longer in this country commands full public approbation.
This submission which I am making to the House is not mere personal conjecture. I was myself present during the whole of a murder trial in court—I will not specify which it was. At the end a verdict of "not guilty" was returned. One of our most eminent judges observed to the man in the dock, in my hearing, "You have been exceedingly fortunate in your jury." I happened on that occasion to agree with the jury; the judge did not, and said so.
Considering the other question, of the possibility of a verdict of "guilty, but insane" being returned, Lord Darling, when giving evidence before the Select Committee on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, said:
In cases that I have read I have felt certain that the person ought to have been


convicted of murder, but the jury, being incited and having evidence given to them about epilepsy and things like that, have returned a verdict that he was insane. I have heard people in charge of criminal asylums say that there are several people in the asylums who are as sane as the judges who tried them—and they are perfectly sane.
If it is argued that the death penalty deters a convicted murderer from committing a second murder, that is an argument which has a certain crude validity. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), now Lord Privy Seal, who was then Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, said, in giving evidence before the Select Committee:
It is certainly not a common experience that a murderer who has been released after serving part of a life sentence returns to prison. As to murderers on commuted death sentences committing further murders on release, that may be entirely ruled out.
It may be asked: "Even supposing that we admit the case for abolition so far, how many potential murderers may not have been deterred by the fact that death may follow their crime?" If the only test available were the experience of Great Britain we should be in the dark completely, and we could only set one opinion against another; but we happen to have the best criterion of all: that of the experience in those countries where the death penalty is no more. So we are able, those of us who believe in abolition, to pit fact against opinion and feeling when they masquerade as fact. First of all, I had better refer to France. That country has had a variable homicidal record. For three years, from 1906 to 1908, M. Fallieères liberally exercised the President's prerogative of mercy. The number of convictions for murder rose. The guillotine was again set to work; and for one year, 1909, the convictions decreased. But from 1910 onwards, in spite of the guillotine's renewed activities, there was a steady increase in the number of convictions. So, if the death penalty was responsible for the fall in 1909 it can be argued no less cogently that it was equally responsible for the increase in convictions from 1910 onwards. The experience of France furnishes no argument in support of either side. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend agrees.
But about 30 other countries and States have abolished the death penalty. Over a long period of years, in countries whose

populations are racially akin to ours, the death penalty has not been practised. Some of those countries are highly important. In Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Holland and Sweden the murder rate today is less than it was in the days when executions occurred. In some cases it has sunk to be a mere fraction of the former figure. Here is another instance, actually in the British Commonwealth of Nations. In Queensland, the last execution occurred in 1913, and capital punishment was legally abolished in 1922. It is interesting to learn that in July of this year the whole of Switzerland, as a State, officially abolished the death penalty.
I am not going to try to exaggerate the significance of those figures. I am not going to say post hoc propter hoc, even though I might be entitled to. All I will say is that the death penalty is not an indispensable method of deterring murderers, and that its abolition abroad has not retarded the downward trend of crimes of violence. And if it be such a great deterrent why do we not have public executions? For the very reason that experience proved that the spectacle had a degrading and brutalising effect, and that it, in fact, encouraged murder, and did not deter.
It may be apprehended that abolition would encourage burglars to use firearms. That is another argument that one sometimes hears. That misgiving was evidently in the minds of members of the Select Committee which took evidence in 1930, because witnesses from abolitionist countries were specifically examined on that point; and no evidence at all was forthcoming to sustain that fear.
The argument about the additional expense of keeping murderers seems to me to be not worth a brass farthing. It has been estimated that, with no decrease in the number of murderers and with a sentence of 20 years imposed in every case where men are at present executed—both very considerable hypotheses—there would be an increase of 300 in a prison population which at present exceeds 10,000. That, I suggest, is a consideration which need not trouble us much. Indeed, the argument of expense could be applied with much greater force to the incurable inmates of lunatic asylums.
The alternative proposed is a long term of imprisonment, subject, of course, to the


existing powers of remission—not an ideal penalty perhaps for a man whose mind may be only momentarily unbalanced or diseased; but we have not yet an ideal penal system. The Home Secretary's proposed prison reform Bill is a proof of that; and I would submit to the Under-Secretary that the first stage in any proposed prison reform should be to abolish a penalty which can never be repaired and for ever stifles any plea of innocence which may be uttered by the chief witness for the defence.
For no one can say that justice has never miscarried. It happens, notoriously and admittedly abroad, where the death penalty is still practised. The late Lord Birkenhead was in doubt about the guilt of Edith Thompson—and so, if I may say so with respect, have I always been. Sir Edward Marshall Hall firmly believed in the innocence of some of his convicted clients. Oscar Slater, as the House is aware, escaped the noose only by the merest hair's breadth, and yet he was proved absolutely innocent, although it took him 18½ years to establish his innocence. If he had been executed, as he very nearly was, society would have ceased to trouble about him, because when a man or a woman is dead we are tempted to ask, "Why worry about someone who is beyond our reach? What good could a reversal of the verdict now do to him? How can you prove innocence with the chief witness dead?" Men have been charged with murder, have narrowly escaped conviction, and have been shown afterwards to have been utterly innocent; indeed, the true offender has afterwards been brought to light when a man's life has been in the greatest jeopardy.
But if I may say so without causing offence, in this controversy I think of the community rather than of the accused or the murderer. Is is really a healthy thing, or a credit to the nation, that we should continue to employ an executioner to despatch offenders whom we say it is too expensive for us to try to reform? The criminal has to be both sane and mature before we can hang him; and, with those two qualities, he can surely be converted into a citizen respecting others and himself as well. Indeed, many, if not most, reprieved murderers have proved worthy of another chance.
To-day, in many places in the world little value is set on human life, which

is the most marvellous and mysterious thing that we know, and I believe it would be a recognition of that marvel and that mystery if we were to do what I believe we are able to do with safety and advantage. I know well enough that every mitigation of penal severity has prompted loud protests and dark predictions. One of the former leaders of my own party, Sir Robert Peel, who is often said to have been a model Prime Minister, could not decide in 1832 on the remission of the death penalty for horse stealing, and as for its abolition in cases of the stealing of more than £5 from a dwelling house, Sir Robert Peel regarded that as "a most dangerous experiment."
But we in Great Britain profess a belief in Christian principles. I can imagine nothing more discordant with the spirit of our Creed than the death penalty. While I contend, as I do, that it is futile, unnecessary and primitive, I think I ought not to forget that it is unchristian as well. Therefore, I seek to commend this reform to the House on the very highest and most conclusive grounds: "Blessed are the merciful."

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I beg to second the Motion. I think that, as the hon. Mover has said, the main fact that this House is likely to consider is whether the death penalty is essential as a deterrent; and upon that point, and that point alone, is the House likely to come to a decision. There are a large number of people who very passionately believe that the death penalty is essential; and they do so on the general grounds that severe penalties are particularly effective, and that the more severe the penalty imposed, the more likely is that penalty to be an effective deterrent. That, I admit, sounds an extraordinarily logical point of view. If you increase your punishment you make that punishment a more effective deterrent—that is a logical argument, and it is very widely held, but I suggest that it has no backing of fact. On the contrary, the whole of penal history tends to disprove the idea that you can steadily increase the severity of the punishments and thereby increase their deterrent effects.
A century ago there were nearly 200 crimes for which the death penalty might be imposed, yet despite that state of affairs lawlessness was


rampant. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that these public executions ought to have been far more effective warnings to criminals than those carried out in private, yet as deterrents to crime they completely failed, and Wilson has left a very grim picture of the execution of a small boy for picking pockets, with the crowd gathering at the public execution and small pickpockets plying their trade under the very shadow of the gallows from which the pickpocket had been executed. There is no evidence whatever that beyond a certain point severity of punishment has any greater effect.
If I might for a moment deal with a parallel case I would draw the attention of the House to the question of flogging. Flogging with the cat, just as has capital punishment, has always been defended as being a punishment of particular efficacy. We have been told that there are certain individuals who are so degraded that nothing but the lash has any effect upon them. There are wonderful legends of the efficacy of the cat and flogging and a large number of people who believe, almost with the fervor of religious belief, that garotting was stamped out by the cat. Some 12 or 18 months ago a Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into this matter. It inquired meticulously into the question and examined all the available evidence. What did it find? That this belief in the efficacy of the cat as a particularly good deterrent was nothing more or less than moonshine and imagination. In its report the Departmental Committee said that it could find not one shred of evidence in favour of flogging, and in the Criminal Justice Bill, which was released an hour-and-a-half ago from the Vote Office, provision is made in Clause 32 for the abolition of the cat on the ground solely that it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that ordinary imprisonment was just as effective as a deterrent, and that the addition of this savage penalty did not make a scrap of difference.
The report of the Departmental Committee on flogging shows quite conclusively, what has already been shown by penal history, that, if you increase penalties beyond a certain point, the increase of severity is entirely ineffective,

and that the law of diminishing returns sets in, and you get no commensurate increase in deterrent from increasing the severity of the penalty. As the hon. Mover of the Motion said, a far more important matter in deterrence than severity of penalty is certainty of conviction. Savage penalties have very frequently been tried for the purpose of supplementing ineffective police work. If, for various reasons, the police were inefficient and had captured only a small percentage of criminals, and the authorities, in order to supplement that weakness in detection, increased the severity of penalties on such as are caught, that policy invariably proved a failure. It has never led to the maintenance of law. But increased certainty of detection has invariably led to a better maintenance of law, irrespective of the type of penalty imposed.
The question of certainty of detection is very important in murder cases for the simple reason that in no other branch of crime is it so certain as in murder. The hon. Member gave the number of people murdered. The actual number of individual murders fluctuates somewhere between 80 and 100 per annum. If you include the cases of multiple murder it brings up the number of victims. Thus my figures are lower than his. In the last five years the average number of individual murders has been 93. The average number of cases in which the police have failed to put their finger upon somebody whom they suspected was only four out of the 93, and in nine cases per annum they have failed to secure convictions. Of the four murders in which they have failed to suspect anybody, half were cases, not of normal murder, but of death following illegal operations, which, I think, comes into an entirely different category, psychologically at any rate, from murder. Therefore, you get two cases out of 93 in which the police are at a loss and you get nine cases out of 93 in which the police fail to secure a conviction. That is 11 cases out of 93. Approximately in nine cases out of 10 in this country the murderer invariably comes to a speedy end, and I do not think there is any other crime which can show such a proportion of conviction.
The statistical figures of murders published in the criminal statistics are very interesting. They show that murderers are a highly selected group of individuals and are by no means a normal sample


of the population. Taking the average of the last five years, 40 per cent. of the murderers have committed suicide and 24 per cent. have been found insane, either upon arraignment or after conviction, or have been found guilty but insane. Thus practically two-thirds or 64 per cent. of the murderers in this country year by year are either insane or commit suicide. I am not suggesting that all the 40 per cent. of the suicides are technically certifiable as insane, but I do suggest that a man who, after having committed murder, immediately commits suicide, is far beyond any consideration of pains and penalties, and that whatever form of deterrent you like to impose for murder has little or no concern for him. These figures prove that two-thirds of the murderers are entirely unbalanced. Some of them may be unbalanced merely temporarily, but nevertheless they are unbalanced. It must not be assumed that the other third are perfectly sane and normal beings.
Insanity in the courts is still judged under judges' Rules which are practically 100 years old and take no account of modern views of what is and what is not insanity. The hon. Mover of the Motion referred to the remarks of Mr. justice Darling when a jury, excited by talk of epilepsy possibly, were inclined to take what he apparently considered to be too lenient a view, but a man who is an epileptic is not a normally-balanced person. One third of the group of murderers probably are people who range from those perfectly sane in any ordinary sense of the word to those who are not quite certifiable. I think that we can assume unquestionably that in this country to-day, whatever the reason may be, murder is the work or the crime of the unbalanced mind, possibly permanently unbalanced as in the case of the insane and many of the suicides. but certainly unbalanced in the case of the vast majority even if temporarily unbalanced. Murder may happen from various causes, such as depression or when a man gets to the end of his emotional tether and suddenly commits murder and suicide, or it may be the result of some psychological explosion. The evidence, at any rate, shows that the actual crime itself is to all intents and purposes the work of an abnormal mind.
Two deductions may be drawn from that fact. They are entirely incapable of

proof and incapable of disproof and are entirely opposite deductions. The first is that if a murder is under our present laws and conditions the work of unbalanced minds, then the death penalty is practically 100 per cent. efficient as a deterrent so far as normal-minded people are concerned. If hon. Members like to use that argument they can. I cannot disprove it any more than they can prove it, but I suggest that it is false because it cuts right against the long experience that savage deterrents are not especially effective. Further, when the penalty of death was imposed in the 200 odd cases of minor crimes it proved singularly ineffective.
If a century ago the penalty of death proved incapable of stopping pickpockets from picking pockets and horse thieves from stealing horses, it seems to me highly improbable that it has suddenly become so incomparably more effective than any other deterrent that it completely prevents the normal, healthy man from committing the crime of murder. There is another and very much truer deduction to be made. The real reason why the normal, sane man does not commit murder is not due to the fact that he is deterred by the death penalty but that he is deterred by his own inner inhibitions, and that the normal, sane man who is capable of weighing up the consequences of his action, who is capable, in other words, of being deterred by a severe penalty, is incapable of committing murder when it comes to the point, because he cannot bring himself to do it. There is the mental deterrent, which is a far more effective deterrent than the death penalty. The respect for human life is ingrained in us. I do not suggest that in times of turmoil this inhibition is necessarily effective, but I do suggest that in an ordered and orderly society such as our own this inhibition against taking human life is sufficiently strong to prevent the normal, mentally-balanced man, who is capable of being deterred by penalties, from committing murder.
Hon. Members may say that this inhibition in itself arises from the death penalty. I think that is a logical mistake. If I am right in saying that this inhibition is the main reason why normal men do not commit murder, surely, if the State itself takes human life by imposing the death penalty, it is far more likely to weaken any inhibition in the individual than to strengthen it. I do not believe that the


question whether we impose 10 years' or 15 years' penal servitude, or whether we boil a man in oil, has any real effect upon the actual number of murders that are committed in our society to-day. I believe that murder is the outcome, in 99 cases out of 100, of mental unbalance, that the whole history of penal reform shows that severe penalties are not more effective than far milder ones and, finally, I am convinced that the real deterrent to crime to the man who is capable of being deterred is not some remote possibility of the death penalty but the almost inevitable certainty that he will be found out and brought to account.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: In rising to ask the House to negative the Motion I hope that hon. Members will not think it an impertinence if I first pay tribute to the sincerity, the wit, the knowledge and the eloquence with which the hon. Mover and the hon. Seconder have put forward their case. I could not help feeling a little apprehension when the hon. Mover announced his support of this thesis, because I remember that in 1790, only a few years before he plunged the streets of Paris into blood, M. Robespierre supported a similar Resolution in the French Chamber. Knowing the somewhat outspoken views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) I could not help wondering what might be the fate of his opponents if he suffered a similar sea change.
The two hon. Members have approached this matter from the two logical lines of approach. First, is any community entitled to use the death penalty, and, secondly, is the death penalty of any practical avail in the State? I should like, first, to deal with what I may call the first philosophical plane of my hon. Friend. It is my conception of the function of the State that it should give protection and provide the means of advancement to humanity, and I consider that if anyone deliberately does an act which strikes against the purpose of the community, then the determination of his fate and his life is in the hands of the community which he has chosen to scorn. Just as it is difficult for anyone to oppose the right to take life in self-defence, so I consider that capital punishment is the

first defence of the community, and is justifiable on these grounds.
When my hon. Friend says that the abolition of capital punishment would create a greater sense of its sanctity among citizens, I ask him to consider that it is among the section of society who scorn the community and treat it as a means to their own end that he expects that the abolition would give that sanctity. I suggest, however, that the view he has put forward is far removed from actuality. I ask the House to consider that we have narrowed and delimited the causes for the death penalty to treason and some kindred offences which strike at the safety of the State, to murder, and to piracy, which strikes at safety on the seven seas. These very limitations have given the penalty of greater standing and a greater effect. It is in these circumstances, not in the widespread adoption of the penalty but in its limitation to the absolute necessities in our society, that the State protects itself, even to the extent of taking life, against violence, whether it be shown against the State, against the individual or against ships on the high seas. That is the basis of our system.
I pass to a consideration of how the system works. The statistics which I propose to ask the House to consider are those cases of murder that have been brought to trial. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) will appreciate, that rules out cases of suicide and so on that he mentioned. In the first decade of this century the average figure was 66, or two per million of the population. From 1930 to 1934, the corresponding figure was 55, a decrease to 1.4 per million of the population. For last year the figure was 46, or a decrease to 1.2. The House, I am sure, will pardon me asking them to go a little further and consider the figures just out for last year. During 1937 there were 46 cases of trial for murder. Of these 13 were unfit to plead, 11 were found guilty but insane, and three were acquitted. Of the remaining 19 who were convicted, one was ordered to be detained as a child; two were detained at His Majesty's pleasure because they subsequently became insane, eight had their sentence commuted to penal servitude and eight were executed. I suggest that if these are the results which the system of the double deterrent


has brought about, then, judging by results, they are very difficult to animadvert against.
I want to join issue with hon. Members on the points they have raised. The hon. Member for Chesterfield has said that the most important question is what he calls the deterrent. Where I disagree with him is in considering that the people who should be considered are the present murderers, the class of person convicted up to date of murder. In my view the importance lies in the effect on those who do not commit murder to-day. The class of criminals who use violence to property to-day, in the sense of being burglars or housebreakers or office breakers, are the men the hon. Member has in mind. Last year the number of these crimes detected by the police was over 45,000, nearly four times as much as the average figure for the first decade of the century, and it is amongst those who commit these 45,000 crimes, the burglar, the housebreaker and the office breaker, that we have to consider whether a deterrent is necessary. To-day they do not carry either revolvers or truncheons.
I have had as much experience as anyone of seeing the criminals of this country during the last 15 years, and the burglar and housebreaker to-day is one of the tamest creatures in creation. A noise above stairs is enough to frighten him, because he knows that if he is involved in the most casual struggle in the commission of the offence and someone is killed, a verdict of murder might be returned against him and he might have to pay the penalty. I put that forward as against the opinion that there would be a freedom from violence among the people who commit this rapidly increasing number of offences if there were not the deterrent of the 8 o'clock walk. I know that a charge of exaggeration is always levelled against those who put forward this view. I think that no case can be made out to show that this section of society, the section who to-day are prevented from using violence, would not change if this deterrent were not removed.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield has raised an interesting point with regard to murder as an attitude of mind, if I may so paraphrase his exposition. I should like the House to consider a case which is very often quoted, the murder of women. Figures have been used by a predecessor of mine in the constituency

I have the honour to represent. I refer to Lord Birkenhead, who said that in 1927 there were five men convicted of the murder of the women with whom they were living, their wives or their mistresses, and he also pointed out that during that same year 14,000 husbands were brought before the Courts for brutal conduct to their wives. In these cases of the murder of women, the motive is usually satiety or boredom and one cannot help wondering how many of these 14,000 would not have shown their sense of satiety and boredom by going further than mere brutality ranging to murder were it not for the deterrent which we are supporting to-night.
The Mover of the Motion said that it had the effect of causing juries to return bad verdicts. There again one can speak largely from experience, and it certainly has not been my experience, on whatever side I have appeared in murder cases, that juries shrink from the unwelcome task. This is borne out by the figures which the Home Office gave with regard to the last 200 murder trials before 1929 when they were preparing the evidence for the Committee of the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr). They pointed out that in only 58 of these 200 cases did the jury add a recommendation to mercy, and it is striking that if there had been a feeling on the jury against capital punishment, or a feeling of reluctance or desire to shrink from the unwelcome task on their hands, they did not at any rate seek the half-way refuge of adding a rider recommending the defendant to mercy. Therefore I do not think, from experience or from the collated facts, that that charge can really be sustained.
I want only to touch on the question raised by the seconder of the Motion in regard to the present law of insanity. I think it is clear that the law of insanity as administered in the criminal courts does, to-day, present a clear problem and a well-defined sphere of action for the jury as judges of fact. There are three requirements. First of all, it must be shown that the prisoner has a disease of the mind. No one would quarrel with that requirement for the defence being found. Secondly, it must be shown that through that disease his reason is affected. Again, I do not think anyone would quarrel with the requirement that the jury must be satisfied that the part of the mind that judges the quality of the act


shall be proved to be affected before a verdict can stand. Thirdly, it has to be shown that the reason is so affected that he did not know the nature and quality of his act or that what he was doing was wrong. I do not want to become involved in that discussion beyond what is relevant to this issue, but I do say here that if there is, as there must be—and it is conceded there must be—evidence of some disease of the mind, the rest of the matter is left for the careful consideration of the jury of ordinary men and women who have to apply their knowledge and reasonable experience of ordinary life. Certainly, I cannot subscribe to the intended reflection that, because of the state of the law of insanity to-day, there is an additional reason for urging the abolition of this penalty.
Before concluding my remarks, I want to pass to two points made by the hon. Member who moved the Motion. The first was with regard to certainty. The hon. Member quoted one case, that of Oscar Slater. Oscar Slater was freed as soon as the neighbouring Kingdom of Scotland set up a Court of Criminal Appeal. The defect there was in the procedure that existed in Scotland in not having a Court of Appeal to review matters of law and fact from the lower court.

Mr. Silverman: How could the absence of a Court of Criminal Appeal lead the jury which tried Oscar Slater to come to a wrong conclusion?

Mr. Fyfe: With all respect to the hon. Member, I think that he is not following my point. What I am saying is that under the system as it existed then, there was not a court of review. What I am urging is that if you have the procedure which we have to-day—namely: first, inquiries by the police; secondly, committal; thirdly, trial at the assizes or Old Bailey; fourthly, appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal; fifthly, appeal to the House of Lords on difficult questions of law; and sixthly, the prerogative of mercy exercised by the Home Secretary—the chances of mistake are reduced to such an infinitesimal number that if we were to act on chances of mistake like that, if we were to try to make any decisions in our lives in regard to such chances of mistake, we should never make any advance of progress.
The other point with which I wish to deal is my hon. Friend's question as to what has happened in other countries. I respectfully submit that what he said about France—to which I assented silently—is true about the comparative method of argument in dealing with this problem. It is not a sound argument to say of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, countries which are both by temperament and temperature places where humanity is mild, countries which have been outside the disturbing movements of the last century, that whether they have the death penalty or not is any serious help in deciding as to the improvement of their homicide statistics. It is as though one cut out of this country certain districts which I shall not arouse any local antipathy by naming, but where we could find perhaps a quietude which does not exist in others. The same applies, as my hon. Friend must know, with regard to the United States, for it would not really help us to say that in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, where they have not the death penalty, there are low homicide statistics; but it may be of help if one considers those many States in the United States where they have tried to do without the death penalty and reimposed it.
One finds that in the case of Missouri and Oregon, after the reimposition of the death penalty just after the War, those States went through one of the most terrible crime periods which have ever been experienced by any country—the Prohibition period in the United States—without any serious rise in their homicide statistics. As far as these comparisons can ever be a guide—I suggest it is a very slight guide, for you have to face the problem on the principles and practices as seen among our own people—they tell in my favour. I was interested to observe that neither the hon. Member who moved the Motion nor the hon. Member who seconded it, based any argument on the abolition of the death penalty in Mexico, Costa Rica or Honduras; it may be that in a later Debate they will get an opportunity of providing us with some interesting information on that score.
Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think of me, I believe sincerely that liberty and freedom are essential to justice, that you cannot have justice, work justice or apply justice without liberty


and freedom; but I am equally clear that justice is essential to liberty, and that unless we are prepared to maintain a punishment which complies with the three requirements of certainty, celerity and appropriateness to the crime, then we shall be striking at the security of our State. We must all recognise that one of the things that have overthrown liberty has been the lack of security of the ordinary decent citizens of all classes and sections of society in certain States. It is because I feel that we must not disturb the balance between our generous impulses towards the individual and our true view of the necessity for protecting society, that I ask the House to reject this Motion.

8.44 p.m.

Major Rayner: I speak as a complete layman. I know sufficient of the law only to keep myself out of trouble, and I feel that my opinion is representative of the opinion held by a large body in my own division and in the divisions of other hon. Members. During the reign of the four Georges capital punishment became more prevalent than it was even in mediaeval times. One hundred and fifty-six new offences were brought within its purview, and the fathers and grandfathers of many hon. Members would have been able to tell us of men being hanged for forgery, blackmail or even for poaching pheasants or trapping rabbits. A novelist of those days has drawn for us a vivid picture of an old judge sitting in his lodgings on the last night of the assizes, looking through the long list of those whom he has condemned to death and striking out the few names of those whose sentences he was prepared to commute—the others being duly hanged two or three days after he had left the town. The hon. Member who so eloquently moved this Motion would have us believe that having trodden the path of humanitarian progress, step by step, up to the present, we ought to take the final step now and do away with capital punishment. I do not agree with that point of view. I believe that murder is still in a class by itself. I think no one should be allowed to deprive another of that great blessing, life itself, without risking the suffering of capital punishment.
As an ordinary citizen my feelings in this connection are based on the following

points. In the first place, I believe that most judges are against the abolition of capital punishment, and as I have great respect for our judges and would go to them for advice on questions of crime and punishment, just as I would go to great medical specialists for advice on physical disease, I believe their view to be right. In the second place, I do not agree with the argument, which has not been advanced to-night but has been advanced on other occasions, that because we have given up the barbaric practices of maiming and torturing, we should give up the death penalty. The bloody crushing of the thumb-screw and the wrench of the rack, the disembowelling, the cutting into butchers' quarters, were deeds which gradually sickened and revolted public opinion, but my feeling is that the death penalty, as carried out to-day, accords with the average man's ideas of justice.
In the third place, I cannot go very far with my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion in his argument as regards the irreparability of the death sentence. I agree that there have been cases in which men have been found innocent after having met with judicial death. If I came in contact with a case like that, for my own part I doubt whether I could sleep comfortably in my bed for many nights afterwards. At the same time, the Select Committee which investigated this question, did admit that the odds were thousands to one against that sort of thing happening. I have great faith in the British jury. I think we have a greater certainty of justice in this country to-day than ever before, and more certainty of it in this country than in any other country in the world. I feel that there would never be any advance in human affairs if we were held back by such a slight element of doubt as that which is involved in these cases.
My hon. Friend also referred to the reluctance of juries to convict. That has been dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend who preceded me and in that connection I would only refer the House to what the present Lord Privy Seal said when giving evidence before the Select Committee:
It is sometimes said that juries, because of their aversion to capital punishment, more often acquit persons charged with murder than they acquit persons charged with other crimes of extreme gravity. The argument


is sometimes advanced that if penal servitude were substituted for the capital sentence, it would be easier to get convictions for murder. As far as the Home Office is concerned, there is no foundation for such an argument.
I am convinced that the main factor in the minds of most men as regards capital punishment is that which has been so ably dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend, and that is the deterrent effect of the death sentence. We have a great deal to be thankful for in this country, but we still breed a number of brutes and we still import them, and horrible crimes are still committed. I feel—and here I again disagree with the Mover of the Motion—that we do not know how many murderers are deterred by the death penalty. That great economist John Stuart Mill, speaking in this House in 1868 on the death penalty, said:
We partly know who are those whom it has not deterred, but who is there who knows whom it has deterred?
And those words are just as true to-day as they were then. Again, I cannot agree that life imprisonment is as much a deterrent as the death penalty. Murder is such an awful thing that I feel that the deterrent must not be weakened. I believe the double deterrent of capital punishment or life imprisonment, the one swift, dramatic and final, the other hard, monotonous and hopeless, is a splendid combination which will deter a variety of potential murderers. The Mover of the Motion suggests that capital punishment does not deter as much as we think. I cannot agree with him. I remember only too well those days on the Western Front when some poor fellows, their nerves broken by privation and shattered by shell fire, wounded themselves in order to get to the comparative peace of the back areas. Some hon. Members here may recall that such cases became more and more common. No army fighting with its back to the wall could let that sort of thing continue. When the death sentence was introduced for such offences, the rot was stopped immediately, and some gallant fellows were literally saved from themselves by that fear of certain death which is the greatest fear that any man can have.
The hon. Member and my hon. and learned Friend between them have referred to a good many countries that have adopted the abolition of the death penalty,

but I would like to refer to one more. I have not contributed anything to the Debates in this House on Spain, but I have some land there and a house, and I was often in Spain up to the beginning of the present conflagration. I have always felt, and still feel, that if the first Republican Government of Spain had not abolished the death penalty, some of those atrocities and murders which led up to and brought about the present horrible conflict might not have occurred. I feel that savagery in that case bred savagery, and who is to say that the present civil war there might not have been averted altogether if the perpetrators of those early incidents had been restrained by a healthy fear of judicial sudden death? We live in dangerous times. Tempers are running high and dreadful deeds are being done, and I feel that never was there a greater need than to-day for stern justice. I believe, like most Englishmen, that British justice is the best justice that can be procured in the world. I do not think this is a time for us to allow our hearts to rule our heads and to embark on a questionable humanitarian experiment which involves the removal of a well-tried plank in our judicial edifice. Just as I do not think we can go easy on armaments until the fear of attack and war is exorcised, so I do not think we can give up capital punishment until the number of brutal murders that occur in this country becomes very much less.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope the House will reject the advice which has been offered it by the last two speakers. We have for years had these arguments in opposition to our proposal, used in much the same terminology. We have been warned of the effects on our social life if "stern justice" is not imposed and if a "healthy fear" is not cultivated among the masses of the people to prevent them from participating in crime. But I do not want to-night to follow in detail the arguments that have been advanced by those who are in opposition to the Motion before the House.
I want to give my support to the Motion on broad human lines, and I want to point out, in the first place, that if the House carries this Motion, it will do so conscious that there is a considerable body of opinion in this country which would welcome this change. We have


often heard from the Government Benches that we cannot legislate ahead of public opinion, but it would be a tragedy if Ministers never departed from that maxim. In point of fact, the Home Secretary himself on many occasions in the past, by administrative order as well as by legislation, has gone well ahead of public opinion and thereby has contributed to its education. But in the present instance I would like to point out that there is already a considerable section of opinion anxious that this experiment should be made. There are certain organised bodies of the Nonconformist Churches which have passed resolutions in favour of this reform; there are sections of the Liberal party, which is not too adequately represented in the House to-night; there is the Labour party which by resolutions has asked for this reform; many of the national trade unions have also resolved in the same way, and there are many distinguished lawyers and leaders of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of York, who are anxious that the Home Secretary should have power to make this experiment. I think the House will agree that the bodies I have named make up a considerable section of the British public.
I, of course, agree that the commission of a hideous murder creates in most of us a deep desire for revenge, and then it seems to us that nothing can be too cruel for the punishment which should be meted out to the person who has perpetrated the cruelty. But I think the more society progresses, and the more sensitive we become, men become increasingly aware that such feelings are invoked when they are emotionally disturbed and not in a rational mood for weighing-up the purposes of punishment. I do not want to restate the case which has been put forward with such remarkable skill by the Mover of the Motion, but I accept his view that punishment, when it is administered, should not only be a deterrent, but also, in a civilised world—and it is the case with a great deal of our legal practice—it should aim at being reformative as well, and it is just on this point that a penalty so severe as capital punishment breaks down. As a punishment it is irretrievable if wrong has been done. Murder is often a crime of passion, due often to squalor, to the social degradation of the people committing the crime, and to anxiety and worry. The penalty for

it, imposes on a Home Secretary a very grave responsibility. He has to decide when considering the infliction of the penalty, the measure of these factors in the crime committed, and it is, I think, too grave a responsibility for any Minister to carry.
There has been discussion this evening as to the degree to which the death penalty deters the criminal population. I should have thought that the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) sufficiently met that case. It is obvious that you do not prevent the population from committing crime merely by imposing terrifying penalties for certain anti-social acts. The whole experience of the world is in the other direction. The more civilised a nation becomes, the more its citizens become socially-minded, the more educated, the less crime occurs. We had in our own country the experience of 100 years back, when, as has already been pointed out, there was a very wide range of crimes, and it was obvious then that however severe the penalties, even if they were the death penalty, the crimes were still committed. The abolition of those penalties in no way increased the resort to crime. Rather, as the social sense was built up, so crime decreased; as men became more educated, as they played their part increasingly in the life of the community, less crime occurred.
If we are concerned with deterring people from crime, we should try to build up tolerable social conditions so that crime would not breed. It has been said that the penalty deters the criminal class from murder. I would only submit that most men who commit murder do so, not as the result of cold-blooded deliberation, but as a result of passion and other temporary aberrations. Consequently, I do not think it is the existence of the penalty which holds off a criminal from carrying his crime of robbery into violence to the degree of murder.
There is the experience of many countries in Europe. It may be suggested that it proves very little, but I do not think that we can explain the absence of a great deal of crime in the Scandinavian countries, as a previous Member suggested, merely on the grounds of their geography and climatic conditions. One recollects in early British history how very violent these people could be, and that they wreaked their violence on us. I suggest that the explanation of the absence


of crime in the Scandinavian countries is largely the high civilised and social standard which the people have achieved. Therefore, it seems to me that crime does not increase when the death penalty has been abolished, but that, if we want to abolish crime, we should build up the quality of life of the masses of the people.
I support the Motion because I want a more compassionate code in a civilised State, and because the death penalty creates among people when a murder is done a very unhealthy atmosphere. It panders to sensation, and incidentally causes a great deal of suffering. I hope that I may be pardoned if I make a personal reference on the last point. I spent a period of my life as a hard labour prisoner in a number of local prisons. My crime was opposition to the War. I was detained for roughly three years, and during that period a number of executions took place in the prisons in which I was serving time. I once had a cell which was opposite the hanging shed, above the condemned cells, and just near the graves of those who had been executed in the past. When a condemned man was brought into the prison it soon became known to practically every prisoner. The news could not be hidden from the prison population. The preparations in the prison beforehand always tended to create an unhealthy excitement among the prisoners, and on the morning of the execution there was felt an uneasiness and a depression among them. The prisoners are confined to their cells. A hushed silence creeps over the prison and every prisoner, sitting in his cell, waits for the hour of doom. It is utterly bad for the prisoners. They are men turned in on themselves, without any emotional outlet, who are nursing their grievances and living rather unnatural lives.
It is even worse for the warders. I have seen them after executions and have spoken to them. They have told me how terrifying the experience has been through which they have just passed. From the governor, the doctor, the chief warder downwards, they all hate the work of having to do to death one of their own kind in such a cold-blooded manner. It is no wonder that the executioner and the warders are haunted for a long time afterwards by the sight of the horror in which they have been engaged. I appeal to the House to permit this experiment for a

trial period of five years. If it fails, the House can return to the present method, but I submit that, with no wish to condone crime or murder, but on common grounds of humanity, this Motion ought to be passed, and I beg the House to pass it unanimously.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Culverwell: I am grateful for the opportunity of taking part in this Debate, because the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) and I are the only Members present to-night who sat on the Select Committee which considered capital punishment. I. should like to congratulate the Mover of the Motion on the able manner in which he put his case. There is a type of mind which always seems to be soaring in the clouds and out of touch with realities, a type which is prepared to go to the stake for its convictions, however wrong they may be, and which bases its views rather on sentiment than on experience and expediency. I make no reflection on those who have spoken in favour of this Motion, but it is curious that two of them, the last speaker and the Seconder, should—and I admire them for it—in defence of their sincere convictions have spent a considerable portion of the last War in prison. It is an equally curious thing that when I was a member of the Select Committee and approached the matter with a completely open mind, prepared to be swayed either way by the burden of the evidence, there was what an hon. Member was pleased to term another "old lag" on the Committee. He was a member of the Society of Friends and he was accompanied in our labours by another member of that Society. I cannot imagine any members of the Society of Friends who believe in the sanctity of human life, sifting the evidence in favour or against the abolition of capital punishment.
I think the attitude of these gentlemen was put very clearly by the Secretary of the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. He put their case very ably and fairly to us when he said that he regarded all human life as equally sacred and considered that—
the life of a criminal who has carried out a series of callous and brutal crimes is of equal value to the life of an innocent child who has been murdered.
I am bound to say that I do not take that view. We were called upon to


examine witnesses from this country and from various foreign countries, and out of the 29 witnesses from this country 21 were in favour of the retention of capital punishment. But it is not only the numbers in favour of the retention of capital punishment which should impress the House, it is the experience which they have had. When I tell the House that these 21 included five governors of prisons, two chief officers, one senior medical officer, one chaplain to His Majesty's prisons, two Prison Commissioners, two ex-Home Secretaries, two judges, the representatives of the Council of the Law Society and of the Home Office, and that among the minority in favour of the abolition of capital punishment were the Secretary of the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, the Secretary of the Society of Friends, which opposes capital punishment on principle, and an experienced prison doctor who considered that abolition should await a thorough reform of the whole penal system, I think the House will agree that, so far as the ability, experience and capacity of the witnesses to judge of this matter is concerned, the weight of evidence certainly lay with those who favour the retention of capital punishment.
My hon. and learned Friend, in referring to the deterrent effect of capital punishment—and it is the deterrent effect, of course, with which we are chiefly concerned—mentioned that in 1927 over 14,000 wives sought the protection of the courts mainly on the grounds of assault or persistent cruelty by their husbands, and in that year there were 293 cases of aggravated assault by males, many of which would be assaults upon wives or housekeepers. That is the evidence of the Home Office. In that year five men were sentenced to death for the murder of their wives or the women with whom they were cohabiting. We know that these five men were not deterred, but we do not know how many of the thousands of others may have been deterred by the fear of the death penalty from murdering the women whom they were persistently assaulting and ill-treating.
It is the fact that we are largely in the region of theory, and do not know how many were deterred by the death penalty, that makes this question so much a matter of opinion as opposed to a matter of fact, but those witnesses with

practical experience of prison administration whom we examined expressed the opinion that there is in this country a small class of callous, immoral and professional criminals. Prison warders, judges and governors of prisons all expressed this view. Mr. Paterson, the Director of Convict Prisons, and the English delegate to the International Prison Commission, said:
We who are in daily contact with professional criminals can safely say that with them the dread of the gallows is a strong deterrent, and I think the capital sentence is still necessary for a certain type of professional criminal.
I could quote much other evidence from those who have personal experience of prison administration. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) suggested that certainty of conviction was much more of a deterrent than the form of the punishment inflicted. I do not know to what lengths he would carry that theory. Obviously it is easier to make the punishment less of a deterrent than it is, and we had evidence from America, from Judge Kavanagh, who had great experience during the Prohibition period, of the tremendous amount of crime in Chicago and of the effect which the reimposition of capital punishment had had. As showing how the deterrent effect of punishment is lessened if you modify the form of the punishment he said:
There are 1,200 prisoners in the eastern prison of Pennsylvania and 780 radios in the cells to keep the gentlemen from getting lonesome.
He took the view, quite rightly, that if you make prison too comfortable, if you lessen the severity of the punishment which you inflict for murder, you naturally lessen its deterrent effect. Hon. Members have referred to the question of retribution and argued that in this civilised age it is not permissible to take retribution against a murderer. The last hon. Member, I think, said that it was an evil thing to take revenge upon the murderer. I agree that we do not take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, and that we do not want to inflict upon the murderer the exact punishment which he inflicted upon his victim, but I do feel that the murderer deserves somewhat similar treatment to that which he has been prepared to give to his victim, and, indeed, this view was shared by some of the witnesses whom we examined. Lord Darling, a very experienced judge, said:


I think it is fair that he who unlawfully and purposely takes the life of a human being should forfeit his own. … I believe that if you did not admit that view at all in regard to punishment that society would not wait for the law to take vengeance.
That brings me to another point which has not been mentioned by those who have spoken to-night in favour of abolition, and that is the question whether, if we abolish capital punishment to-day, we should not be going in advance of public opinion. If we did go in advance of public opinion we might well create a situation in which the public would take justice into their own hands, and we might have lynch law in this country. Indeed, this view was expressed by the Home Office. They stated:
This proposal for the abolition of capital punishment ought not to be adopted unless Parliament is satisfied that it is supported by the great body of public opinion in this country.
With all due deference to the hon. Member who has just spoken, I do not consider that the bodies he mentioned are necessarily representative of the general public opinion of this country.
It is important that public sentiment should not merely accept abolition in the abstract but should be strong enough to overbear the passions which may be excited by the contemplation of the harrowing details of some brutal outrage. If this test were not satisfied the country might well be exposed, for the first time in its history, to all the horrors of lynch law.
I think that view deserves the consideration of the House—that we should not legislate in advance of public opinion lest after some horrible crime the public, believing that the criminal would get off too lightly, should take the law into their own hands.
A reference was made to the reluctance of juries to convict owing to the growing sense that capital punishment was too harsh and too cruel for this civilised age, and that there should be more recommendations to mercy. Again this is a complete misapprehension. During the period from 1901 to 1916 61 per cent. were not recommended to mercy, but during the period from 1916 to 1929 71 per cent. were not recommended to mercy, which shows exactly the opposite tendency on the part of juries. Reference has been made to the question of fallibility. It is true that, when you hang a man, you cannot bring him back to life, but you

cannot legislate for individual mistakes of that kind. I feel that, if by experience you have proved that capital punishment is beneficial to society and that it restricts the number of murders, the fact that you may make a mistake and that an individual may suffer should not be allowed to override other considerations. I believe that our process of law and justice is such that the danger of any mistake is practically negligible.
One hon. Member referred to the effect upon warders and prisoners of executions taking place. Although he has been some time in prison and I have not, that was not the burden of the evidence that was given before the Select Committee. A prison chaplain who had attended 15 executions said there was little effect upon prisoners nowadays because the procedure had been much improved. It may have been improved since the hon. Member was in prison. We have been assured that every step is taken to conceal from the other prisoners the fact that an execution is taking place, and I believe that even further steps could be taken in that direction. We might, for instance, have one special prison where only executions should take place. But that is no argument against the desirability of retaining capital punishment because those are matters of practical detail which can be, as indeed they have been, remedied. The black flag is no longer hoisted, the date of the execution is kept secret from the other prisoners, and two witnesses informed us, whilst admitting the naturally unpleasant and distasteful nature of their duty, that the effects of any execution upon themselves and the prison population were purely temporary. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but those bad effects upon the prison population are no excuse for abolishing a weapon which if retained, may be beneficial to society. These are matters which administration can remedy, and which to a large extent have been remedied.
There is the further question of the sensationalism which a murder inspires in the public. I do not think that the abolition of capital punishment would remove the sensationalism. It is the gruesome details of the murder and the plight of the man who is on trial in which interest is taken. I do not imagine that the morbidity would be lessened were the man to be sent to penal servitude at the end of


his trial instead of being sent to the scaffold. Perhaps the evidence to which many Members attach most importance, though quite misguidedly in my opinion, is that which we have received from foreign countries. Very little assistance can be obtained from the evidence from foreign countries. They vary one from another in area, size of population, whether they are agricultural or urban, whether they have political crimes, whether they have ardent or placid temperaments, and so on. For these reasons it is impossible, in my opinion, to draw any useful deduction from evidence provided by other countries. The hon. Member referred to Denmark. One witness from Denmark, when we asked him whether there was a criminal class there, said, "I should say No." One can understand that. There is only one big city; otherwise it is a small agricultural country whose conditions are quite different from those here or in America, where there are large manufacturing centres with organised criminal classes. Therefore it is a great mistake to put too much trust or to draw deductions from the evidence that one receives from foreign countries.
Mr. W. J. Brown, who first broached this subject and was the cause of the committee being set up, said in 1929 that the real test to apply was not a test as between one country and another but the number of murders taking place within the same country before and after the abolition of capital punishment. That is a perfectly reasonable statement but, unfortunately, he went on to quote foreign countries, such as Norway, Denmark, Holland and Italy, where again the figures are not reliable. For instance, in Norway the last execution took place in 1875, and up to 1864 there were no reliable statistics. In Denmark no statistics are available prior to 1866, and since that year only four executions have taken place, the last being it 1892. Those who seek to draw any deductions from the position in Denmark should ask themselves whether they really gain much benefit from the study of figures such as that. In Holland reliable statistical data beginning from the middle of the century show that death sentences were rare and executions quite exceptional. Since 1860 there have been no executions. In Belgium the last execution took place in 1863. So that one cannot with complete statistics before one

say that before capital punishment was abolished there were so many murders and so many executions and after there was a diminution or an increase. They are either quite unreliable or non-existent.
Hon. Members may try to make deductions and to suggest that statistics prove that if capital punishment were abolished this crime would not increase, but one cannot be too sure of one's ground. In Italy the most severe form of solitary confinement you could find took the place of capital punishment. One witness from Italy said that it was a grossly inhuman form of punishment which few survived, either physically or mentally. One may well say that although they abolished capital punishment they substituted for it a punishment which was equally, if not more, severe. As regards the United States, the same holds good. It is no use comparing a negro state with a white state or an agricultural state with an urban state. You must take like with like. When you consider the information available you must remember that the Home Office say that in those States which have abolished the death penalty the homicidal rate is higher than in the others.
I sum up. I am sorry to have taken so much time but I understood there was not a great rush to speak on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "There will be, after you."] It is no good to rely upon the statistics and experience of foreign countries. In England we have the certainty, upon conviction, of a perfectly definite penalty. That is the best deterrent. All those who have practical knowledge of the criminal class, like those who gave evidence before the Select Committee, having personal experience, thought that capital punishment was the greatest deterrent and necessary for the protection of society; that miscarriages of justice were remote and almost impossible and that the execution had no brutalising effect, such as an hon. Member suggested, upon warders and prisoners, and that if it had, that could be avoided by administrative methods; that the prerogative of mercy which the Home Secretary exercises can be used to adjust the punishment to suit the crime. I hope that this House will not decide this question, as many Members have been prone to do in the past, upon sentiment, and principle, but that they will base their decision upon the results of experience and upon expediency.

9.38 P.m.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of improvements that have taken place in the carrying out of the death penalty, but I am afraid that, whatever advance in technique there may have been, death will remain the end of life. I do not think there is much consolation to be drawn from that situation. I rise to support the Motion that has been proposed, and I hope that this question, which is a non-party one and interests all sections of the community, will receive support and be carried to-day in the moderate and experimental form in which it appears upon the Paper. The hon. Member opposite referred to the need for carrying public opinion with us. I believe public opinion would be behind a Motion of this kind. He referred to the Home Office, but I believe public opinion is far in advance of the Home Office on those questions. I do not think we have to wait until the Home Office is satisfied. As the hon. Member was speaking I could not help thinking how speeches of that kind had been made all down the ages in defence of the law dealing with the death penalty as it has existed in its various stages.
I should like to refer to an example of which I know and which occurred in Wolverhampton about 120 years ago. Two men in a rather drunken condition, I think, were fighting in the main square. A shilling dropped out of the pocket of one of them. A policeman was standing by and, knowing that £40 of blood money could be obtained if there were a conviction, he arrested those two men. They were taken to the Stafford Assizes and both were condemned to death. At that time that was the normal course and seemed right, but the end of that incident was that one citizen of Wolverhampton, being apprised of the facts, went to the Home Office and saw the Home Secretary, who was then Lord Sidmouth. He got back to Stafford just in time to save the men's lives. Perhaps the House will permit me to refer also to the fact that the rescuer happened to be my great-grandfather.
It has been said that this is sentiment and that we cannot make an advance. That argument could have been used for hundreds of years and, if it had been accepted, would have prevented any advance being made. I was quite convinced by the statistics given by the hon.

Member who has just spoken that there was a very strong case for the abolition of the death penalty. It seemed very convincing that countries of similar kind to ours, where people have the same stolidity, or whatever our nature may be, have got on quite well without it for a considerable period. That is true also of people of a more fiery nature. I see no reason to suppose that we should not be just as secure as we are at the present time. All the facts seem to stand for that.
It may be said that a moment when the whole world is organising to indulge in mutual slaughter on a scale that has never been known in the history of the world is not the moment to choose to make an advance of the kind suggested, but I say that in our little island we should show the world an example of the right way to conduct matters of this kind. It may be that brutality is showing itself in other countries in a way which is shocking everybody and making a return to medieval and barbaric times and manners, but if that is so, let us see that we, at any rate, can continue to move along the path of humanity.

9.43 P.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I agree with the remark that was made by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) in moving this Motion that it would be wrong not to take the view of this House and not to discuss a matter of this kind at this moment On the contrary, it is highly satisfactory that we should be doing so and that our constitutional arrangements make it possible, for example, for my right hon. Friend to introduce his Bill and for us to make a careful study of whether the death penalty ought to be continued in our country. We all recognise the deep importance of this subject, but those in active work in the Law Courts and in the Home Office feel it even more intensely, for the reason that they are brought more closely into contact with it.
In the Home Secretary's room at the Home Office stands, by long tradition, a frame which contains a list of the condemned. Day by day it has reminded Home Secretaries of the final responsibility which, as shown in the memoirs of Home Secretaries, many of them have felt deeply. I remember that when the


present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Home Secretary he made an addition to that frame. He had engraved upon it a remarkable line from a Roman poet. Perhaps the House will permit me, although I am not a classical scholar, to quote the line and to give the free translation of it which my right hon. Friend has given to me. The line is:

Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est.

Freely translated this means that you cannot take too much forethought before deciding that a man should die. I think that that is the spirit in which we also ought to approach this question.

Perhaps the House will grant me some indulgence if I choose my words rather carefully to-night in speaking on behalf of the Home Office on this important subject. The proposal in my hon. Friend's Motion is not for the total abolition of capital punishment, but for its abolition for an experimental period of five years. The question of the abolition of capital punishment is, of course, one on which there has been a good deal of discussion, and proposals for legislation to abolish the penalty of death have been put before the House on previous occasions, but this is the first occasion on which the House has been asked to declare itself in favour of an experiment of this kind. I think it is true to say that opinion on the subject of capital punishment is divided between those who think it necessary as a deterrent, those who are convinced that some other deterrent is possible and ought to be adopted, and, lastly, those—probably the largest class of all—who, while they dislike capital punishment and would wish that it could be dispensed with if that were possible, hesitate to come to a final conclusion on the question of its total abolition. I think it is clear that my hon. Friend's Motion is intended to claim the support of this last-named class of people.

The first and principal objection to the suggestion that capital punishment should be abolished for a period of five years is that the period proposed is much too short to enable the general effect of abolition to be judged, or any really useful conclusion to be drawn. Even on the basis of a comparison of the statistics for murder during the five years of the proposed experiment with those in the immediately preceding period, it is clear that

the period of five years is not long enough. It would be difficult, in so short a period as five years, to be quite certain as to the causes of any variations which the figures might show as compared with those of a previous period. What would be involved in such an experiment, however, is not merely the correlation of the statistics relating to murder over a short period of years with the statistics for the period before capital punishment was abolished, but an estimate of the effect upon men's minds of the removal of the deterrent of capital punishment as a penalty for murder, and of the new conception that murder is a crime the penalty for which is some form of penal detention, and probably a form of detention of the same general character as that which is imposed for other crimes. Before any generalisation from the results of such an experiment could be securely based, it would be necessary, in the view of the Home Office, to have the experience of the change for at least a generation.

The period proposed is not only too short, in our view, to enable an opinion to be formed on the question of capital punishment as a deterrent, but also to enable any judgment to be formed as to what the appropriate alternative penalty is, or whether an alternative is practicable. The Motion is silent on the question of the penalty to be substituted for that of capital punishment, but presumably the penalty would be a long term of detention in prison. The question arises as to what should be the conditions of this detention. It may be suggested that, in order to preserve the distinction between the penalty for the worst forms of murder and the penalty for other forms of crime, a special type of imprisonment involving some specially severe and rigorous treatment, should be instituted as the penalty for certain categories of murder. A special system of rigours and severities for a selected class of prisoners would run counter to the whole spirit of the modern prison regime; would in our view be impossible to administer in practice; and would be bound to have evil effects, both upon the individual subjected to it and upon prison officers whose duty it would be to apply it.

Mr. Benson: Mr. Alexander Paterson, one of the Prison Commissioners, and, I think, a Prison Commissioner of many years' standing, opposed the abolition of the death penalty because he thought that,


even under modern prison conditions, a penalty of 10 years' imprisonment was more severe than the death penalty. There seems, therefore, to be no need for imposing special conditions.

Mr. Lloyd: That is the view that the hon. Member takes, but I do not think it is the view of a great many other people inside and outside this House, and I do not think that the House would be prepared to accept as an alternative to the death penalty a sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years. If, however, the alternative suggestion is that all convicted murderers should be detained in future under the ordinary prison régime but for a long period, I think it would be strongly opposed both in this House and outside. Under the existing system a sentence of penal servitude for life rarely exceeds the equivalent of a 20 years' sentence, that is to say, 15 years' actual detention; but if the death sentence were abolished, it would presumably be necessary to detain the worst type of murderers for a longer period than this, and there might be cases of murderers, for example, some poisoners, whom it would be unsafe ever to release. The question of the detention of human beings in prison for their natural life, or for periods so prolonged that they are practically without hope in regard to their release, must necessarily raise for the prison administration problems of an entirely new character, and it would clearly be quite impossible to expect that any light on these problems would be thrown by the experience of five years. Many people would regard the detention of a prisoner for the whole of his life as a penalty as inhumane as the punishment of death which it is sought to abolish, but the choice might lie between such detention and the return to society of a person who ought never again to be allowed the opportunity of committing further crime.
If, on the other hand, as seems much more likely, it were found impracticable to detain even the worst type of murderer for periods substantially in excess of the longest periods served at present, it would become impossible to make any effective distinction as regards the penalty between the most appalling type of murders, whose nature is such as to arouse special abhorrence and detestation in the public mind, and other murders, or, indeed, other

crimes punishable with penal servitude for life. The effect of this change upon public opinion—whether, indeed public opinion would tolerate it at all—could not possibly be gauged during the experimental period of five years for which capital punishment was in abeyance. The whole crux of the question of capital punishment is the question of an alternative penalty, and the many difficulties involved in any alternative could not be expected to become evident within a period of five years.
The suggestion of an experiment is open to the further serious objection that, if the experiment proved unsatisfactory, it might be necessary to consider the reintroduction of the penalty of capital punishment. It is obvious that, once the penalty were abolished, there would be the greatest difficulty in securing its reintroduction. Although the penalty is to be abolished according to the terms of the Motion, for an experimental period, on the basis that the time has not yet come for complete abolition, the onus of effecting a change in the law is at once shifted from those who propose abolition to those who propose re-introduction. No humane person is in favour of this penalty for any reason except its necessity, and the task of securing the passage of legislation to re-introduce the penalty, once it had been abolished, would, even if such legislation were in fact necessary and justified, be a most invidious one. In effect, therefore, the proposed experiment would prejudice the whole future consideration of the question, and the House should realise that what is proposed under the guise of an experiment may in fact mean the complete abolition of capital punishment.
As the suggestion underlying the Motion is that the time is ripe for the abolition of capital punishment, it may he desirable to consider the matter from a more general point of view. Without embarking upon any theoretic discussion of the general issues raised by the controversy on the subject of capital punishment. there are certain considerations which may be mentioned, as deserving very great weight and placing a very great responsibility upon those who suggest the change in the existing law at the present time. The first is that which has already been touched on, as to the difficulty of devising a suitable alterative. The dreadful character of a long sentence of


detention may be less obvious than the dreadful character of a death sentence, but it must be recognised as the evil thing; and the choice between the two as a choice between evils. There is, on the other hand, the difficulty that anything less than prolonged or even life-long detention may have the result of abolishing the present distinction between murder and all other crimes, with results, both in relation to the question of deterrence and to the effect upon the public mind, which it is quite impossible to foresee.
Secondly, whatever the view taken of the general efficacy of deterrents other than capital punishment for the crime of murder, there is good ground for the belief that there exists in our population a class of persons, professional burglars, housebreakers, and criminals of that type, who do not carry lethal weapons because, while they are fully prepared to take the risk of imprisonment, even for long terms, which is the penalty for the crimes they commit, they will not expose themselves to the risk of execution. The substitution for the death penalty of a sentence of penal servitude, nominally for life, would not, it is believed, prove a deterrent to such persons from taking life in the course of their felonious enterprises or in order to escape. This is the opinion formed by police officers and others who have experience of this class of criminal, and it must be given very great weight.
It is, however, impossible to confine the consideration of this question to an abstract discussion of whether some other penalty than the penalty of death would be efficacious deterrent from the crime of murder. It must be recognised that the existence of this penalty for a crime which, in every civilised society, is regarded as different in nature from all other crimes, is due to the belief on the part of the great body of public opinion that this sanction is essential for the preservation of the security of life in society. It would, in the view of the Government, be essential, before any change in the law could be contemplated, that there should be evidence of the existence of a predominating public sentiment in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, and that no change should be made in advance of a general desire for change on the part of public opinion. This view is based upon two main considerations. In the first place, it would be deplorable

to run any risk that, as has happened in some other countries, the abolition of capital punishment before public opinion was ripe for the change might be followed by an agitation for its re-imposition. And, secondly—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell)—there is a real danger that if public sentiment were not fully prepared for such a change, the occurrence of some outrageously brutal murder might arouse such passion that this country would be exposed for the first time in its history to the horrors of lynch law. That the possibility of some such outburst of popular indignation is not to be ignored is shown by the outcry which has arisen in some cases in which prisoners guilty of what appeared to be heinous murders have, for one reason or another, escaped execution. Cases of this kind will be within the recollection of hon. Members.
It is, of course, difficult to test the prevailing state of public opinion at any time, but the experience of the Home Office suggests that, so far from there being any indication of any increasing feeling on the part of the general public in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, the tendency appears to be in the other direction. There are, of course, in existence certain societies whose aims include endeavouring to secure support for a change in the law relating to capital punishment. But, in the experience of the Home Office, there has been in recent years no indication of any general trend of public opinion in favour of abolition, and there has been, in fact, a marked lack of any strong interest on the part of the general public in the question of capital punishment. It would be wrong, however, to assume, from the fact that the existence of this penalty and its exaction in individual cases has not aroused any special public concern of recent years, that its abolition would be regarded by the public with equal equanimity. On the contrary, as has been stated, there is at least some evidence in the concern exhibited in some cases in which the view is taken that a murderer has escaped execution, that the public is concerned to see that the existing law is carried out in proper cases.
It is sometimes urged by opponents of capital punishment that the existence of the death penalty makes juries reluctant to convict of murder. It is possible that


if there were any general sentiment in favour of abolition it might be reflected in the attitude of juries in murder cases. There is, however, no support, in the experience of the Home Office, for the view that any such reluctance on the part of juries exists. During the period from 1932 to 1937 there were 115 persons convicted of murder and sentenced to death; in 50 of these cases there was a recommendation to mercy by the jury, but no recommendation to mercy was made in the other 65 cases, and it must, therefore, be presumed that the juries were prepared in these cases to see the law take its course in accordance with their verdict.
The only recent occasion upon which the subject of capital punishment has been debated in Parliament was in 1929, upon a Motion by a private Member. As a result of the Debate, it was decided to set up a Select Committee on the subject. Prior to this, except for occasional short discussion on Bills brought before the House from time to time, there had been no Debate on the subject in Parliament since 1886. The report of the Select Committee appointed in 1929 includes a recommendation in the terms of the present Motion. In accordance with the usual practice this report was presented to the House as that of the whole Committee. In fact, however, it appears, from the published Minutes of the Committee, that the six Conservative members of the Committee, upon the defeat of their motion for the adjournment of the Committee in order that they might prepare an alternative draft report, withdrew, and took no further part in the proceedings. The Committee's report cannot, therefore, be accepted as in any sense expressing the views of representative Members of all parties in the House. On the contrary, it appears to represent merely the opinion of eight other members of the Committee. The report has never been debated in the House and it cannot be regarded as having any authority other than that of an expression of the personal views on this question of the eight members concerned. The Government feel that upon a subject of such gravity and one on which so many men's minds have in the past been exercised, the expression by a bare majority of the Committee of an opinion from which a large minority totally dissented, cannot possibly be regarded as a

sufficient justification for considering the formulation of legislation along the lines proposed.
In the view of the Government the suggestion of an experimental period as a half-way house to total abolition is entirely mistaken. If there were to be any change in the law it should be by legislation for abolition outright. Such legislation is not in the Government's view justified at present either by anything in our present knowledge of the subject or by the general sentiment of the people of this country.

THE CLERK at the TABLE informed the House, of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This is the second time that I have listened to a Debate in this House on this very important subject. I shall be very brief in what I have to say, but I should like to make one or two comments on the Debate. I think I shall be voicing the opinion of all Members of all parties in the House when I say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams), who moved the Motion, did it exceedingly well, and we congratulate him on his courage and determination in bringing such a Motion before Parliament. I will deal, first of all, with the hon. Gentleman's statement of policy on behalf of His Majesty's Government. He did not tell us whether the Whips are to be put on or otherwise this evening. I am hoping that the Government will allow us to have a free vote in order to test the opinion of the House on this vital issue. Needless to say, the policy of the party on this side of the House is in favour of the Motion, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said; and I am wondering whether he will be good enough to tell us now, because it is customary for the Minister in charge, before he sits down, even though he has read his brief which he may not have agreed with entirely himself, to say whether we are to have a


free vote of the House or not. Would he like to tell us now?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course there is to be a free vote. The Government merely advise.

Mr. Davies: We understand, therefore, and for the information of the supporters of the Government, they are free this evening to vote for this Motion if they like, I quite realise the gravity of the statement that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but quite honestly I thought he was exaggerating the importance of some of the points he put forward. For illustration, the alternative penalty. Is there anybody who can convince this House that the Home Office in this country cannot find an alternative penalty? They have got one already. When a man is convicted of murder and sentenced to death and is then reprieved there is the alternative of penal servitude for life waiting for him. I thought the hon. Gentleman was belabouring that point unduly. Then he thought there was a lack of public interest in this problem. Quite frankly I do not know whether that is so or not, except that in 1929 we had a Debate on the same issue in this House. Then we had a Select Committee set up as a result, and we have a Motion now on the issue from a Member of the Conservative party. I do not remember very many subjects debated in this House within such a short period of time as that, and, consequently I do not think that the charge of lack of interest can be sustained.
Let me now say how I feel about this thing myself. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been just within reach of this problem myself. My mind is affected in this way, that society in this country in spite of all that can be said for the death penalty, is obviously ashamed of what it is doing. Why all this secrecy about executions? Why do we want to hide the whole frightful brutal business if it is not for the fact that we are ashamed of what we are doing? It is only two or three decades ago that capital punishment was carried out in public, if you please, in order that it might act as a deterrent. Society thought later, however, that that was too frightful, and we do it now behind closed doors. We are told now that it is to be done very shortly in such a way that it will almost be just a pleasant exhibition.

Mr. A. Reed: Why not try it?

Mr. Davies: Has all that acted as a deterrent? The human race has executed, crucified, disembowelled, burned, drowned, maimed, and guillotined its murderers, and still people are being murdered. It is no use talking therefore about the deterrent effect of executions on criminals. I think that we have a strong case for its abolition. The hon. Member for West Leeds has a very excellent case in favour of his Motion. The hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Fyfe) gave us the figures of the number of persons convicted of murder, those who were executed, those who were deemed to be insane and those who were reprieved. These are the figures for the last available period. There were eight executed, and 13 had their sentences commuted to penal servitude. I think the 13 must have been reprieved by the present Home Secretary, and two were certified as insane. The hon. and learned Member made great play with the argument that, first of all, there was the police evidence. Then the criminal was taken to another court, and still another court, then to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and if there was a certain intricate point of law to be decided he was taken lastly before the House of Lords. There are so many courts, so many juries, so many lawyers arguing about it, that you could not possibly make a mistake in arriving at a correct decision.
When all this has been done, however, the fact that of the 21, no lses than 13 of them were reprieved by a right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench opposite. In spite of all your juries, your lawyers, your judges and your House of Lords, a gentleman sitting at the Home Office had to decide, in the end, that out of 21 cases, 13 should not be hanged. The best condemnation of the death penalty in this country is that Parliament and society throws upon the Secretary of State the responsibility of deciding whether a murderer shall be hanged or not. Let me argue the case a little nearer, because one hon. Member said that those who support this Motion have their heads in the clouds. Thirteen were reprieved last year.

Mr. Fyfe: Only eight.

Mr. Davies: My case is quite as good, whether it is eight or thirteen. Suppose the hon. and learned Member was the Secretary of State for one period—I do not know his ambition—and suppose the hon. Member who moved the Motion was Secretary of State for another period, and they had that awful list of murderers put before them. I have seen it. I have seen a clerk come into the office in the morning and casually draw his red pencil through the name of the person who has been executed that morning. I am not sure that the attitude of mind of the hon. and learned Member in taking the final decision as to whether a person should be hanged or not would not be different from that of another Home Secretary coming from exactly the same political party. Therefore, capital punishment is condemned because merely by changing your Home Secretary and getting a Minister with a different attitude of mind towards capital punishment, you decide the issue of life and death.
What annoys me about hon Members who oppose the Motion is this. I have been in this House for many years and have taken a little part in trying to amend the law to mitigate penalties on all classes of criminals. One very important Measure that I took some part in is the Children and Young Persons Act. What did we do there? I do not know much about the law. God forbid that I should ever become a lawyer; but if certain learned Gentlemen can earn £10,000 a year at the Bar with the eloquence they possess, I do not know what my income would be. What has Parliament done since I have been here? It has mitigated the severity of sentences on almost every wrongdoer except the murderer. I sat for two years on a committee which inquired into juvenile delinquency. We were told that ever since the Roman law was written a child of seven in this country had never been punished, because he did not know the difference between right and wrong. We raised the age limit from seven to nine, because we considered he did not at that age know the difference between right and wrong. Then we found that the age at which we could enforce capital punishment was just over 16, so we raised it to 18 in that Act. If you want an argument against capital punishment this is the best I know; that if a youngster is 17 years 11 months and

three weeks old he can commit the foulest murder and be immune from capital punishment under the law, but if he be 18 years and one day old he may be excuted, especially if the hon. and learned Member happens to be Secretary of State at the time. What offended me most in his argument was that we profess to be a Christian community and all our practices are based on the Old Testament—and this is one of them.
I am proud of many things that are done in this country, and the more I travel the more I esteem the laws of my own land. I too have been in Chicago, Oregon, St. Louis and Missouri, and I know a little of what is happening there. There are as many murders in Chicago, with or without the death penalty, in-a city of 2,000,000 people, as there are in this country with 42,000,000. It just depends on who lives there—and most of the criminals are Tory blue at that. In my view, the best deterrents against crime are the spread of the right kind of education, and the proper housing and feeding of the population. It is a proud thing to think that while the figures of the population of this country have doubled the number of murders remains approximately the same. That is the best thing which can be said of our civilisation, and I am positive, having had a little contact with this problem on more than one occasion, that this House, in spite of what the hon. and learned Member has said, ought to carry the Motion and show that at any rate we are living in the spirit of the New Testament and not working under the Mosaic laws any longer.

10.24 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: To those who have sat throughout the Debate certain very definite points have emerged, and the first is this: Let me put it without any offence to hon. Members who take strong views on this matter. They really feel that the cause which they represent is not one for argument, but it is a tenet of faith that no human life should be taken. They hold that view whatever happens, and therefore, on the question of faith and of deterrence it becomes obvious from what has been said that five years is an impossible limit. You have either to get rid of the penalty altogether or keep it on. I do not think that enough attention has been given to the types of murder offences which are com-


mitted We must get out of our calculations all cases of murder in which insanity occurs, because obviously insanity occurs whether you have capital punishment or not. Then, I think it would be just to put aside those cases of murder which result from what might be called an accident, cases where murder was not intended but resulted from some other crime.
This leaves two categories. Mention has been made to-night of cases of burglary and particularly of housebreaking Here there is a class of men who do not now use weapons, and I think those people, again, may be divided into two groups. One would not use weapons in any event, whether they could be had for murder or not, but the others are definitely deterred from going to extremes if they get into a corner by the knowledge that they may lose their lives for so doing. Surely, in that respect, capital punishment has some deterrent effect.
It would have, I think, a very serious effect on public opinion if there were no capital punishment and the public thought that a really callous murderer was escaping what the public, perhaps in its wrongheadedness, called his just deserts, If, for instance, there is a really bad egotistic person, cold and devilish, who commits a murden with callous intention after long and calculated thought as to the way in which to do it, it is no good saying that such a person is insane. He is nothing of the kind. Those people exist in the world, and there is only one deterrent in their case, and that is an attack on their own ego. The only way to make that attack is to put it to them that they will be the sufferers if anything of that kind is done. Nowadays, I think, we no longer regard this as a question of the old lex talionis, the law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If we have capital punishment, it is really for the protection of the public and as an example to other people not to do what has been done. The whole question boils down to a very simple thing. If by reason of your convictions on grounds of life alone you are satisfied that you should remit capital punishment, you will still have the question of alternative punishment to consider. Therefore, abolition is not a matter which ought to be settled without very careful thought of future alternatives.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I welcome the opportunity, since I was chairman of the committee—one of my colleagues on the committee, the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) has already spoken—of dealing with the report in some sense, and of answering some of the objections that have been raised to-day to the arguments and Motion of my hon. Friend. I may recall that one of the objections that was taken to our report when it first appeared was that there were no fewer than four poetic quotations in it. I am reinforced in that now, since to-night I heard the Under-Secretary quote a Latin line, and doubtless if he had had more time, he would have given us more quotations. But if hon. Members had examined those quotations, they would have seen that they were entirely characteristic of the impartiality of the report, since two of them were in support of capital punishment and two of them were against it.
I wish now to mention the reception which was given to our report. A great deal has been said to-night about public opinion. May I read these few extracts? The "Spectator" declared:
The plan advocated in the report should be given a fair trial.
The "Nation and Athenaeum" said:
In our judgment the case for experimental abolition is very strong.
The verdict of the "New Statesman" was:
The real question here is whether the gallows is necessary in this country now as a deterrent to murder. For our own part we do not believe it.
Many provincial morning and evening papers gave us their full support. The "Manchester Guardian" said:
The spectacle of one human being condemned to death by another was terrible because barbarous, of the Old Testament rather than the New.
And it added:
If we find at the end of five years that we dare not abolish the death sentence, we shall have to confess to being less civilised than countries like Holland and Denmark.
Before I mention what we received in the way of support from the Churches, may I be excused for a short excursion into the realm of the classics. The main argument used by many classical writers, just as it is sought to be used now, was that there were certain people who by


their conduct proved themselves to be beyond redemption, and that therefore they should be cast forth as a branch that was withered. I give you this from Plato's "Laws":
Those whom the legislator perceives to be incurable with respect to these particulars, he should punish in the extreme, as knowing that death is better than life to all such as these; and that when they are liberated from life they will doubly benefit others. For they will serve as a warning to others not to act unjustly; and the city, by their death, will be freed from bad men.
Then Seneca in his "De Beneficiis" says:
Seeing that for such characters death is the only remedy, it is best to leave him to himself who will never return to himself.
But I would be doing an injustice to the classics if I were to convey the impression that that is the only argument to be found in them. Here is a noble passage from the History of the Peloponnesian War, in which Thucydides, dealing with the proposed execution of some rebels, wrote:
We must not, then, either take bad counsel through trusting to the punishment of death as being efficacious, or leave to those who have revolted no hope of being allowed to repent and to wipe out their offence in as short a time as possible.
That is a thoroughly modern argument in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend. Many hon. Members too will probably recall the famous passage in Cicero referring to the fact that under the Porcian Law in Ancient Rome the death penalty was abolished for free men, though not for slaves. Cicero proudly boasted:
In the Republic, the ill-omened tree had long been buried in the darkness of antiquity, and overwhelmed by the right of liberty.
I pass to say a word on the Christian standpoint, to which reference has already been made. I am glad that we have had no quotation to-night of the old lex talionis: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

Mr. Marcus Samuel: rose—

Mr. Barr: I am afraid I have not time to give way to the hon. Member. I have a big task. To me, the most fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ, enforced by His example, was that He despaired of no man, that to Him no man was beyond redemption. In His practice He did not deal much with self-righteous people such as we are. He dealt with those who were

the despair of all others, and when He Himself—may I say it reverently—became the victim of the death penalty, He still exercised His calling, He still showed his unquenchable faith in man, He still sought to convert and raise the two thieves on either side of Him, and not without success. And the word He spoke then of those who had inflicted the death penalty is true of all who have been inflicting it through the ages:
They know not what they do.
For three centuries every great Christian writer, every great Christian preacher, was opposed to the death penalty. Let me give an example or two. Origen said:
The Lawgiver of the Christians did not deem it becoming to His own divine legislation to allow the destruction of any man whatever.
Cyprian said:
It is not permitted even the guiltless to put the guilty to death.
And Lactantius, who died in 321, dealing with the words, "Thou shalt not kill," as applied to this question, said:
With regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all for it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature.
For centuries Christians refused to become magistrates because they were opposed to administering the death penalty. You get it as late as the reign of Julian; you get it in Gibbon and every great historian. Wyclif said:
It is wrong to take away the life of man on any account.
How do the Churches stand to-day? Here is some reflection of public opinion. When the Select Committee's report was published "The Church of England Newspaper" expressed the hope that
the public would become so articulate that Parliament would be compelled to take action along the lines proposed.
"The Christian" declared:
The continuance of capital punishment was a practice intolerable in a century even nominally Christian.
"The Baptist Times" said:
The recommendations would be generally welcomed.
The "Methodist Times" pronounced the report
a long overdue step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and I, being Presbyterians, are supposed to be a little backward in some of these matters; but in


May, 1931, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of England passed the following resolution:
The Assembly, having had before it the 'definite recommendations' of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment appointed by the House of Commons, expresses its approval of the recommendations, and urges the Government to give effect to them with the least possible delay.
And lest we should think these resolutions are confined to England, the Annual Assembly of the Congregational Union, held in Glasgow on 30th April, 1931, passed the following resolution:
The Assembly of the Congregational Union of Scotland regards the death penalty as an antiquated form of punishment, inconsistent with Christian belief in mercy, redemption, and the value of human personality, and prays His Majesty's Government to put into operation at an early date the recommendations made by the House of Commons Select Committee on Capital Punishment.
I turn now to some of the prophecies that have been made as to what might happen if the death penalty were abolished. We have had references to past times when there were a vast number of executions. During the reign of Henry VIII there were 2,000 per annum on the average, and in 1819 there were 220 offences for which this punishment might be inflicted. The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Major Rayner) said he was opposed to abolition because he knew judges, and they were all opposed to it. All the judges and practically all the magistrates were opposed to the abolition of the capital penalty for these small offences. When Sir Samuel Romilly's Bill for abolishing the penalty for stealing up to an amount of £5 was before the House in 1810, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
It was unsupported by the authority of one single judge or magistrate.
That reform was accompanied by jeremiads as to what would happen. Lord Ellenborough, speaking on this Bill, said:
Repeal this law and see the contrast—no man can trust himself for an hour out of doors without the most alarming apprehensions that, on his return, every vestige of his property will he swept off by the hardened robber.
It is well known that forgery had this penalty attached to it, and in 1829 more people were executed for it than for all other offences in England and Wales. When it was proposed to abolish the death penalty for forgery it was declared

in this House that "the inevitable effect would be the destruction of trade and commerce." Yet, in every case where the penalty was swept away crime diminished, property became more secure, and life became safer and more sacred.
What are the prophecies we hear today? The hon. Member for West Bristol spoke about people taking the law into their own hands, a kind of lynch law. My answer to that is that during this century, from 1901 to 1929, 527 murderers were reprieved. Some of them were guilty of the most horrible and atrocious crimes; and yet public opinion, though it might not always have approved the reprieve, never resorted to mob violence, even when it drew a fierce contrast between those executed and those reprieved. Of all the witnesses we had from other countries there was not one who said that this had ever happened in any other country. The hon. and learned Member for West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Fyfe) referred to the carrying of firearms as a possible result, but in experience we find that these forbodings have no evidence to support them. Evidence was put before us from other countries, and there was none to the effect that there had been any increase in the number of burglars arming themselves or carrying lethal weapons. The carrying, or not, of firearms belongs to the social customs of various countries. In Belgium, where you have abolition, it is not the habit to carry firearms; in France, where there is capital punishment, it is the habit. Reference has been made to the large number of murderers in America, but though they have capital punishment in 40 out of 48 States, 90 per cent. of the murders there are by the use of pistols.

Mr. Culverwell: Does the hon. Member deny that we were given evidence by prison warders and governors that they had overheard conversations in prison to the effect that the prisoners were frightened of carrying firearms because of the existence of capital punishment?

Mr. Barr: I do not remember that particular incident. [Laughter.] Yes, but I am going to combat that view; I am not going to run away from it. Mr. Arthur G. Mortimer, prison officer at Wandsworth, said:
I have never experienced anyone who has been reprieved attacking a warder after


he has been reprieved. I had never experienced that, and I have ever heard of such a man
It has been suggested to us that a new career of crime might follow if these people were let loose on society. Mr. Hansson, the Secretary of the Prison Commission in Norway, said:
I do not know any case of a murderer who has been released on trial who has committed a new murder crime.
As to the future conduct of released murderers, we had the testimony of Lord Darling, who said:
The murderer, in my experience, does not belong to the class which is called a habitual criminal.
Lord Brentford said likewise; and Sir John Anderson, now the Lord Privy Seal, said, speaking for the Home Office:
I think, certainly, that that is the experience, that you find the most respectable and worthy people among the convicted murderers who have their sentences commuted.
May I say in reference to a statement by the Under-Secretary that the Home Office, in their evidence while they did object to a particular proposal that we put before them to begin the remitting of sentences even before the Five Years' Remission might be approved by this House, said that in any case they would be able to work it even if there were complete abolition.
Something has been said of uncertainty. Someone may be condemned who is not really guilty. Miscarriages are rare, but I hold that they do happen. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, afterwards Lord Craigmyle, when Junior Counsel for Doherty of Rutherglen formed the opinion that there was a miscarriage of justice. He said:
From that hour to this I have ceased to believe in the punishment of death. Cases in the intervening years have occurred which have deepened my conviction.
Even if there should be only one case, that should give us pause. Benjamin Franklin, in his notable letter to Benjamin Vaughan, said:
It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.
As to States and countries changing their opinions, I would remind my hon. Friend and colleague that Judge Kavanagh, to whom he referred, while he came all the way from America to

protest against the abolition of capital punishment, admitted:
Abolition has been justified by results in six of the eight States that have adopted and retained it.
No doubt there are other States which have been going back. Kansas has gone back after a long experience, but we must remember that a change of Governor—that is what has happened there—often means a change of policy in the United States. Brazil has gone back under semi-Fascist influences. Rumania has gone back under similar influences. When the committee sat, the death penalty was in abeyance in Germany. Italy had long had abolition, but has since repealed it. The Italian Minister of Justice declared that the change was "in keeping with the Fascist conception of the State and the individual." He said that the doctrine of the individual being the end and society the means was now replaced by the diametrically opposite Fascist conception, according to which the individual was only an infinitesimal and transitory element in the social organisation and that therefore he must subordinate his own interest and his very existence to the organism of the State, which was its judicial organisation. When a nation puts down all parties but its own, its rulers must live in constant dread, and they crowd for shelter under the gallows tree. I make a present to the supporters of capital punishment of all the totalitarian States.
I am not entering into the question of the relative deterrency of the death penalty or of prolonged imprisonment. John Stuart Mill, a consistent supporter of the death penalty, yet drew a picture of the deterrency that might come from any sort of prolonged imprisonment where, he said, "They were immured in a living tomb." I do not dwell on these things, because, after all, the greatest and the only real deterrents are education, sobriety, and general social uplift. One of the objections that I have to the emphasis that you lay on capital punishment is that it is taking you away from the social crusade to eliminate crime by eliminating its social causes. Social advance is worth more than 1,000 executions as a deterrent.
We are socially responsible. Criminals are our own creation. The criminal is often the product of poverty, of wretched social conditions, of drinking habits, of


home environment, and social example. In fact, society, by inflicting capital punishment, may be killing or otherwise punishing a man whom it has wronged from the hour of his birth. It may be laying its heavy penalties upon crimes, the guilt of which is, in greater or less degree, shared by every member of the community. Every community and every generation fixes the amount of its own crime, and every penalty we inflict, however just in some senses it may be, is really a censure on ourselves.
The scaffold has not taught men to venerate life; it has cheapened life. It has not repressed crime; it has perpetuated it. The age that gave us 240 capital offences gave us also what has been rightly called "Britain's golden age of crime." Like begets like. Savagery reproduces savagery. Brutal laws make a brutal populace. Cruel punishments breed cruelty through the nation. The scaffold blunts public delicacy, deadens moral sentiment, and degrades human nature. My hon. Friend pointed to the fact, which was once stated in a supplementary question in this House, that two members of the Society of Friends sat on this Committee. I leave the Home Secretary to answer that taunt about the Society of Friends. We are all aglow with his scheme for prison reform, but if

to prison reform the right hon. Gentleman will add this, the greatest of all criminal reforms, he will not only prove himself worthy of his noble ancestry, but he will win the applause of generations yet to be.

I will close with a quotation from the most prominent opponent of the death penalty ever known in this country, the greatest Quaker who ever sat on these benches, and the finest orator who ever addressed this House—John Bright. He said, on 3rd May, 1864:
The security for human life does not depend upon any such miserable and barbarous provisions as that. The security for human life depends upon the reverence for human life; and unless you can inculcate in the minds of your people a veneration for that which God alone has given, you do little by the most severe and barbarous penalties to preserve the safety of your citizens.

On 11th July, 1850, in another Debate, he said—and I put it before my colleagues in all parts of the House:
If you wish to teach the people to reverence human life you must first show "—

and I trust we shall show it to-night—
that you reverence it yourselves.

Question put,
That this House would welcome legislation by which the death penalty should he abolished in time of peace for an experimental period of five years.

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 89.

Division No. 2.]
AYES.
[11. 0 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Adam, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hardle, Agnes
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Palling, W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Parkinson, J. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Pearson, A.


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Poole, C. C.


Benson, G.
John, W.
Price, M. P.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Bread, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Procter, Major H. A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Capo, T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Riley, B.


Charleton, H. C
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Sexton, T. M.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Simpson, F. B.


Day H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dobbie, W.
McGovern, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-leSp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Foot, D. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Thurtle, E.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Milner, Major J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Groves, T. E.
Montague, F.
Walkins, F. C.




Watson, W. McL.
White, H. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Welsh, J. C.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Mr. Vyvyan Adams and Mr. Barr.


Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Petherick, M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hambro, A, V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bull, B. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lewis, O.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Davidson, Viscountess
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallan)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lloyd, G. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McKie, J. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Eastwood, J. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Titchfield, Marquess ol


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon, H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Munro, P.
Wiss, A. R.


Furness, S. N.
Nall, Sir J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Naylor, T. E.



Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Mr. Maxwell Fyfe and Major Rayner.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House would welcome legislation by which the death penalty should be abolished in time of peace for an experimental period of five years.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (SIRENS, PURCHASE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: On 3rd November I asked a question of the Home Secretary about a memorandum circulated by the Home Office to local authorities, in effect recommending the local authorities to purchase sirens for air-raid warnings from a particular firm. It seemed to me, from the information which I had, that the procedure adopted had been unfair, and had had the unfortunate, and I am quite sure undesigned, effect of giving a monopoly, or a virtual monopoly, of the manufacture and sale of those articles to a firm in Leicester, which, after all, is not a place suffering unduly from unemployment and the other things which create a Special Area, and taking it away from the town of Nelson, which has an unemployment percentage of 45 and

which is in many other respects suffering severely in these days. I am quite certain that that was not the intention, but I am equally certain that it was the effect. I gave notice then that I intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I consulted with the Under-Secretary on Monday of this week to see whether that evening would be convenient. It was not convenient, and to our mutual satisfaction we arranged that I should raise it to-night. I would like at the outset to offer my congratulations and thanks to the Under-Secretary for having so availed himself of the reprieve, if I may use that word, as to meet or virtually to meet the complaint I had to make. I want to say that at once, because his action makes it the less necessary that I should dwell at length upon this matter. But it is worth while, since the matter has been raised, to point to the process that was adopted in this case so that it may be avoided in other cases.
The facts appear to be that in July of 1937 the Home Office wrote to Messrs. Carters, a firm in Nelson, and invited them to submit their 20 horse power siren to a test which was to take place at the end of that month. There is a reference to some previous correspondence which I have not seen. I know there is a dispute


between the Home Office and the firm I have mentioned as to whether it was the Home Office that selected and invited the firm to submit a 20 horse power siren or whether the firm volunteered to submit the 20 horse power siren. As to that, I can only say that the firm told me most emphatically and repeatedly that they submitted the 20 horse power siren only because they were invited by the Home Office to submit such a siren. The siren was tested against a number of other sirens, and in particular against an eight horse power siren submitted by a firm called Gents, of Leicester.
That was the last that my constituents heard of the matter until August of this year, 12 months later. They then became aware of a memorandum circulated by the Home Office to all local authorities telling them that there was a suitable siren manufactured by Gents, of Leicester, that the Metropolitan Police were using it, and that it was the only one recommended by the Home Office. When they saw that it was a four horse power siren they began to wonder what had happened, because a four horse power siren, as far as they knew, had never been tested in competition with any other siren at all, and certainly not with the 20 horse power siren or with the eight horse power siren which Gents had in fact submitted to that test. They wrote to the Home Office and complained, and for four weeks got no answer of any kind. Since then there has been correspondence between Members of this House and the Home Office into which I no longer need enter because I hope the matter has now been satisfactorily resolved, but it seems rather an unusual method of making a test and making a recommendation that they should be invited to submit one type and then virtually to be excluded from the market altogether because the type which they had been invited to submit was not the type the Home Office required.
The firm in Nelson manufacture a five-horse-power siren at least equal in power to, so I am informed, and no dearer in price than, the one recommended. In order to reinforce their argument that they were able to supply an article that completely filled the bill as well as if not better than the Leicester firm's siren, they tell me, and I have no reason to doubt what they say, that the Chief Constable of Liverpool, not knowing which siren came from which firm,

not knowing anything about the dispute, not knowing that there was a dispute, but testing the sirens against each other on their merits, had no hesitation whatever in choosing the Nelson siren.
The firm complain—and I think the House will see the force of their complaint—that a Memorandum of that kind, circulated to local authorities at the end of August of this year, has operated to deprive Nelson of a great many orders. It seems to me almost impossible not to infer that local authorities would be afraid not to go to Leicester for their sirens, because they would fear that the Home Office would not make their grant to any local authority that chose something which they did not recommend. Therefore, local authorities had to place their orders in Leicester. I have no doubt—although I have no evidence of this, but it is a reasonable inference from the facts to suggest—that the Leicester firm probably has far more orders than it can possibly execute in the time required, while this firm in Lancashire has none at all.
If there has been any misunderstanding which is now over, let me say nothing to cause any further misunderstanding. I understand that the Home Office have now invited Messrs. Carter to submit a siren of comparable size, and that if, after further tests, it fulfils requirements, the Home Office will issue another Memorandum to the local authorities, pointing out that a suitable siren can be obtained in Nelson. I hope the test will be carried out quickly, and that if it is satisfactory the Memorandum will be circulated quickly, too. It is not right that anything should be done by Government action to make the industries of Lancashire less effective than they are at present. It may be that they can do little to help, but I am sure they do not desire to do anything to hinder.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I am also interested in this case, because a firm in Burnley manufactures parts for the firm in Nelson. The Under-Secretary will know that I have been corresponding with him about the matter. What surprises me is this, that any one firm should be singled out and advertised to the local authorities throughout the country in any circumstances at all, but if that should happen, it ought not to happen unless there was a very fair


test. From the information supplied to me, which I have sent to the Home Secretary, it did not seem that the test was in any way fair, because the firm in Lancashire were, as they say, invited to supply a 20-horse power siren, whereas the actual contract was for a siren of a very much less horse power. It lends itself to a good deal of suspicion if one firm's name is mentioned. I do not know whether it is the practice of Government Departments to single out one firm, but if that is to be done in the interests of efficiency it ought not to be done unless there is a very adequate and very fair test. The firms about which I have been in correspondence with the Home Office claim that they did not have a fair test.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I entirely agree with the proposition of hon. Members that it would be wrong for a Government Department to discriminate unfairly between one firm and another or between one industrial area and another. I should like to put to the House some considerations which I think show this matter in a rather different light. When the Home Office turned its attention to instruments suitable for giving public air-raid warnings, it found that there was very little knowledge available in a readily accessible form with regard to the effectiveness of sound-producing instruments or the range over which sound could be transmitted. There were no data and the manufacturers themselves did not seem to have any clear idea as to how far sirens would carry, which from the Home Office point of view was a vital matter.
The Home Office therefore called together an informal committee to advise it. This committee included, besides representatives of various Government Departments, three expert scientific members in the persons of the Engineer-in-Chief of Trinity House, a member of the Physics Department of the National Physical Laboratory and a member of the research staff of the Royal Engineers and Signals Board who was especially concerned with the problems of sound ranging and sound location under the War Office. This committee decided at the outset that the problem of transmitting air-raid warnings was one on which the solution could not be given by existing

data and it accordingly instituted special trials. These trials were of a comprehensive and comparatively elaborate nature. They lasted from March, 1937, until April, 1938.
The form of the trials adopted was to sound instruments from an elevated platform and to have the strength of the signals recorded by observers posted in circles round the site at varying intervals. These observers were carefully instructed beforehand how to record their impressions of the individual sounds in accordance with one of four classifications of audibility ranging from an arresting sound to a sound that was just perceptible, and points were awarded to each instrument according to the report made by each individual observer. The result was that the trials were primarily judged from the manner in which the instruments impressed themselves upon human observers, since the purpose of the trials was to find instruments which would convey the air-raid warning signals to individual members of the public. At the same time, the opportunity was taken of measuring the noise produced by each instrument by means of an objective noise meter supplied by the National Physical Laboratory.
In these trials the committee was aiming at finding instruments which had a range of not less than one mile, and the committee selected from among the instruments whose existence was known to the Department all those which gave promise of achieving this range. The manufacturers of each instrument were then invited by the Department to lend the instrument for inclusion in the trial, and in the great majority of cases they did so. It must be said that to a very great extent the results of the trials were disappointing. What I mean is that it was found to be surprisingly difficult to transmit a clearly audible sound over any long range in a built-up area.
The committee reported in August, and the Home Secretary felt that it was his immediate duty to notify to local authorities the instruments which had been found by the committee to be capable of this standard of performance. This was accordingly done by a circular on the 29th August. I have mentioned that in the course of the trials measurements of the instruments were taken by the National Physical Laboratory with an


objective noise meter. By means of a correlation between these measurements and the observers reports it has been possible to frame a rough formula that an instrument which will give measurements of a certain standard on the objective noise meter at a certain distance and under certain conditions is likely to give an effective range of audibility comparable with those of the recommended instruments. This therefore gives a means of applying a test by which further instruments can be measured and it is the Home Secretary's intention that an opportunity should be given for instruments which were not brought to the notice of the committee during the trials to be tested at the National Physical Laboratory by these means. If, on test, they reach the required standard the Home Secretary will be prepared to add them to the list of recommended instruments.
I will now refer specifically to the instruments manufactured by Carter and Company of Nelson. They are electrical sirens, and I will preface my remarks by explaining that two types of electrical sirens were included in the Home Office trials, one a vertical type and the other a horizontal type. The horizontal type was in fact represented by the instruments of one firm only. There were numerous examples of the vertical type, both British and foreign. When the results of the trials came to be analysed it was found that the horizontal sirens of the one firm were the only electrical sirens which reached the standard the committee required and they, or rather one of the two instruments, was the only electrical siren which the Home Secretary was in a position to recommend. The House will however, of course, appreciate that until the conclusion of the trials neither the committee nor the Department knew that the horizontal siren would prove superior to the vertical siren.
To come to the position of Carter and Company. This firm was asked by the Department in March, 1937, to furnish particulars of the sirens they manufactured, and in their reply they stated that they had recently designed a new 20 h.p. siren which was about to go to test and asked that they might be allowed to postpone supplying the information until those tests had been completed. The following month particulars were furnished

of a range of sirens all of the vertical type from ½ h.p. to 20 h.p., the last being their new instrument for which a considerable range of audibility was claimed.
The firm was therefore asked to submit this instrument for trial and did so. It was included in a trial held on the 22nd July, 1937. There was subsequently further correspondence with the firm on the subject of prices of their various instruments but the type of instrument, namely vertical sirens, remained unchanged so far as correspondence with the Department disclosed. The committee finally reported as I have described and its report disclosed that the 20-horse power vertical siren made by Carter & Company was not as efficient as the 4-horse power horizontal siren made by Gent & Company, Limited, the latter being the only type of electrical siren which the committee recommended. The Home Secretary's recommendation to local authorities therefore included no electrical siren except the Gent 4-horse power horizontal siren.
It was not until after the Committee had reported and the Home Secretary had issued his recommendation, namely, not until September of this year, that Carter & Company informed the Department that they made a 5-horse power horizontal siren which was in design and performance similar to the Gent 4-horse power horizontal siren which had been recommended.
The Committee's trials, as I have explained, had shown conclusively that the efficiency of sirens could be judged solely by their performance and not by their size or power. The Home Secretary was therefore unable to accept without confirmation the claim of Carter & Company that their 5-horse power horizontal siren was as good as the 4-horse power siren made by Gent & Company, Limited. I have however referred to the possibility of a noise measurement test at the National Physical Laboratory and an invitation has now been sent to Carter & Company to send one of their horizontal sirens to the National Physical Laboratory for test.
I want to emphasise two things: first that the instrument of Carter's which was included in the Home Office trials was the instrument which they put forward to the Department as being the one of all


their instruments which had the longest range; and secondly that the existence of a Carter siren of the horizontal type was not brought to the notice of the Department until September of this year. The Home Secretary has no wish to withhold his recommendation from any British instrument which is of the required standard of efficiency but his duty to local authorities and to the taxpayer who provides the money for air-raid precautions grant compels him to be satisfied beyond doubt as to the efficiency of any instrument which he recommends for use as an air-raid warning signal.
I would conclude by saying that I hope I have removed the misunderstandings

by which, I think was very easy for this matter to become clouded, and to express the hope that owing to the fact that we now know of the existence of this siren, the test will now take place. I would also express the hope that this siren may indeed fulfil the qualifications and that it may be possible for my right hon. Friend to issue a recommendation to the local authorities for this siren as well.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.